Wife-killer detained unlawfully

WIFE-KILLER George Noreiga has been detained unlawfully at the State prison since 1986. According to his attorney Mark Seepersad, Noreiga’s detention is unconstitutional and the time has come for him to be released from prison. Noreiga, 48, was found guilty, but insane, before Justice Ivol Blackman in the San Fernando Assizes in 1986 of the murder of his wife Allison Garcia-Noreiga. He was arrested and charged with murder on February 9, 1983. Although he was found to be insane, Noreiga has never spent a day at the St Ann’s Mental Hospital. He spent nine years at Carrera Island Prison, and since 1993, has been an inmate of the Golden Grove State Prison.

Noreiga, through his attorneys Mark Seepersad and Gerald Ramdeen, filed a constitutional motion seeking his release from prison. The motion is being heard before Justice Humphrey Stollmeyer in the Port-of-Spain Second Civil Court. State attorney Joy Balkaran is representing the Attorney General. Hearing resumes this morning. Yesterday, Seepersad pointed out that Noreiga was ordered to be detained under Section 67 of the Criminal Procedure Act. He said this was wrong as it breaches Noreiga’s constitutional rights. He said Noreiga’s detention under Section 67 was a clear breach of the separation of power between the executive and the judiciary.

“That section means that the applicant is to be detained at the President’s Pleasure. President’s Pleasure means that someone is detained until the President says otherwise. The continued detention is also in the hands of the President,” Seepersad argued. Seepersad continued, “when a special verdict is rendered, as was in this case, the court makes an order under Section 67. The court authorises the initial detention of the prisoner by virtue of a warrant of commitment. “The applicant says that this initial authorisation through the warrant of commitment is sufficient authority to reduce the prisoner into the custody of the Commissioner of Prisons. Section 67 authorises the executive to order the further detention of the prisoner. “On this analysis, once the prisoner has been reduced to the custody of the Commissioner of Prisons, from that point on, the prisoner is now detained at the discretion and under the executive. He is now deprived of his liberty,” Seepersad submitted.

Seepersad pointed out that the detention continues from day to day and will only be determined when the President puts a stop to it. He continued, “the continued detention is as a result of the executive action. While he may have been found to have committed the act, the applicant is not responsible for the act committed, so he is not to be subjected to punishment.” Seepersad made it quite clear that the executive was usurping the functions of the judiciary by detaining the applicant at the President’s Pleasure. He said according to Section 67, there is a clear breach of the separation of power because the executive is exercising a judicial function. Seepersad argued that the judiciary had the power to deprive one’s liberty - not the executive.

JUDGE: Are you saying if the judiciary deprives the applicant of his liberty, there will be no problem?
SEEPERSAD: No, my Lord.
JUDGE: There will be no breach of the separation of power if the court is to lay down the rules?
SEEPERSAD: Yes, my Lord. Deprivation of liberty is a judicial function.
Section 67 erodes that judicial power. Seepersad will conclude his submissions this morning, following which Balkaran will reply.