The first witness was cross-examined in the preliminary inquiry (PI) into the advocating a terrorist act charge against Oliver Hinckson in the Georgetown Magistrate’s Court yesterday.
Officer-in-charge of the Serious Crimes Investigations Unit within the Criminal Investigation Department, Trevor Reid, was cross-examined yesterday morning.
Before cross-examining Reid, defence counsel Nigel Hughes submitted to the court several “observations”. On top of the list was the fact that Hinckson was taken to court yesterday with shackles on his hands and feet. The defence counsel said this “is not in keeping with Hinckson’s right to receive a free and fair trial” and requested that they be removed.
After the shackles were removed, Hughes reminded the magistrate that on the last occasion that they were before the court she had signed a warrant for Hinckson to be remanded to the Georgetown Prison.
On August 15 at approximately 8 pm, the attorney said, his client was removed from the prison and taken to Police Headquarters, Eve Leary, then to the Brickdam Police Station and finally to the La Grange Police Station.
Hughes further reminded the court that when the remand warrant was signed his client was left in the sole custody of the Georgetown Prison and it was unlawful for the police to have moved him from there.
“Information has come to hand that his life is in danger,” Hughes told the court. He added that no reason has yet been given for his client being “moved around”. The defence counsel described this as an “…attempt to intervene and impact upon the trial.”
If the police wanted to question Hinckson, Hughes stated, they needed to go to him. He further said that an ancillary effect of moving his client around was that Hinckson was placed in a cell with a prisoner who was suffering from tuberculosis. Hughes said he was concerned about this since the disease was a highly contagious one.
Finally, Hughes submitted to the court that his client had been placed in solitary confinement for 22 hours every day and was only allowed to see sunlight for two hours daily. “We believe that this is an attempt to subject him [Hinckson] to cruel, unusual and undue punishment,” Hughes said.
On one of his previous court appearances, Hinckson had told the court that he had been “locked down in solitary confinement, incommunicado, in a strong cell which is located down by the dungeons” for a number of days. He said he was being kept in the cell for 23½ hours each day and had only seen sunlight once in six days. Hinckson also told the court that if someone was kept in such confined conditions, “incommunicado”, then it was a crime.
In response to these submissions State Prosecutor in the Hinckson matters, Sanjeev Datadin, told the court that it was the first time he was hearing about these circumstances and they would be investigated. With regard to Hinckson being kept in solitary confinement Datadin said the statute that governs the prison allows the authorities there to make such determinations and neither the prosecution nor the court had any say in the matter.
Hinckson’s attorneys also made another application for bail to Acting Chief Magistrate Melissa Robertson-Ogle.
According to Hughes, the petition made before Chief Justice Ian Chang in July was withdrawn and therefore no longer existed. He explained to Magistrate Robertson-Ogle that no other court could now claim to have before them an application for bail and that the petition made in July would have no effect on any new application or granting of bail made currently. Therefore, he said, he was making a new application for bail to be granted to his client.
The date set for the matter to continue is next Monday. Hinckson’s guns and ammunition case should also be addressed on that day.
Justice William Ramlal on July 14 had dashed Hinckson’s hopes of pre-trial freedom when he granted a motion against him being admitted to and released on bail, filed by the Attorney General’s Chambers that morning.
Justice Ramlal had ordered that a rule nisi of certiorari be directed to Magistrate Robertson-Ogle for her to show cause why a writ of certiorari should not be granted quashing her decision to admit Hinckson to $1 million bail on a charge of advocating a terrorist act.
The judge also ordered that a rule nisi of prohibition be directed to Director of Prisons Dale Erskine for him to show cause why a writ of prohibition should not be issued prohibiting him from releasing Hinckson on the magistrate’s order.
Hinckson’s lawyers had filed a counter-application, which was heard before Justice Ramlal on the morning of July 15. Magistrate Robertson-Ogle had granted Hinckson bail on July 11.
Hinckson was charged on March 11 with advocating the commission of a terrorist act and uttering seditious statements. The second charge stemmed from a statement he made during a press conference at City Hall.
