State attorney begs judge: Leave insane prisoner in jail

STATE ATTORNEY Neil Byam yesterday pleaded with Justice Humphrey Stollmeyer not to release insane wife-killer George Noreiga from prison. Responding to submissions from Noreiga’s attorney Mark Seepersad that the applicant should be released from jail, Byam was against this move. Byam felt that Noreiga should stay in jail in the interest of public safety. Noreiga, 48, was arrested and charged on February 9, 1983 with the murder of his wife Allison Garcia-Noreiga in Moruga. He was found guilty but insane before Justice Ivol Blackman in the San Fernando Assizes in 1986. He spent eight years at the Carrera Island Prison. From 1993 to the present, he has been kept at Golden Grove State Prison.

Noreiga filed a constitutional motion in which he is seeking certain declarations including an order for him to be released forthwith. The motion is being heard before Justice Stollmeyer in the Port-of-Spain Second Civil Court. Hearing continues this morning. Byam said however, it was clear that the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act were not complied with. He admitted that Noreiga was never accorded treatment as stipulated under Section 68 of the Act. “I do not know who is responsible, but there was failure on the part of the State to follow Section 68 of the Act,” Byam added. Section 68 states: “The court shall as soon as practicable, report the finding of the jury and the detention of the person to the President who shall order the person to be dealt with as a mentally ill person in accordance with the laws governing the care and treatment of such persons or in any other manner he may think necessary.”

Byam added, “It does not matter which agent of the State fell down, the main issue is that the applicant was not treated in accordance with the Mental Health Act. It will be difficult to find an answer to the applicant’s case. Had the Act been complied with, the applicant may have been released at some point before this application.” Byam told the court that under the constitution, Noreiga had no appeal to the guilty but insane verdict. He felt the motion being pursued by the applicant constitutes an appeal, and therefore, it should not be entertained.

JUDGE: If what you are saying is correct that there can be no reviews, then the applicant can’t do anything about that?
BYAM: I don’t think he can mount a serious challenge on this.
JUDGE: Let us not deal with who is liable. Are you saying that the applicant must languish in prison and he can’t do anything about it? I am enquiring of you, that an order is made under Section 67 of the Act, someone is detained until the President’s Pleasure is known. Nothing happens thereafter, that person is never examined by medical personnel. That person’s mental health is never examined. Does he have any remedy in law? Does he have to sit where he is and nothing happens?
BYAM: If the applicant is treated and examined, if there is perfect compliance, and if he is never released, nothing is wrong with that.
JUDGE: I am asking you a direct question. We are proceeding on the basis that Sections 67 and 68 permit a judge to order a person detained until the President’s Pleasure is known. That person is incarcerated, nothing more takes place, what’s next?
BYAM: The applicant can seek an order of mandamus compelling compliance of Sections 67 and 68 and asking for an order to be treated as a mental patient and for his status to be reviewed from time to time.
JUDGE: So he has a remedy?
BYAM: Yes, My Lord. He can bring judicial review proceedings to challenge the decision not to release him. The State attorney admitted there was some breach of the constitution. He said the DPP must be involved although he is not a part to these proceedings.