Judge: The President did nothing

HIGH COURT Judge Humphrey Stollymeyer said yesterday that as far as he was concerned, the President of Trinidad and Tobago did nothing with respect to insane wife-killer George Noreiga who has been in prison for the past 18 years after he was found to be insane by a jury. Justice Stollmeyer, who is sitting in the Port-of-Spain Second Civil Court, is hearing a constitutional motion brought by Noreiga in which he is seeking among many reliefs, that he be released forthwith from the State Prison.

While State attorney Joy Balkaran was responding to Noreiga’s claims, Justice Stollmeyer intervened, “I don’t know the President did anything with respect to Mr Noreiga. When I look at Section 68 of the Criminal Procedure Act, it seems he did not interfere, because he did nothing. When you review this file, there is nothing to show what was the order made after the trial. “I gathered that Mr Noreiga was to be detained until the President did something, but he did nothing,” the judge added. Section 68 of the Act 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.”

Noreiga, 48, was arrested and charged on February 9, 1983, with the murder of his wife Allison Garcia-Noreiga at Moruga. He was found guilty but insane before Justice Ivol Blackman in the San Fernando High Court in 1986. He spent eight years at Carrera Island Prison. From 1993 to the present time, he has been kept at the Golden Grove State Prison. In her submissions, Balkaran said that Section 68 does not give power to the executive to order the detention or keep in custody any person found to be insane. She said that according to Section 66 of the Act, there is a special verdict which means that a person is found guilty of the act, but the verdict is insanity. “The effect of Section 66 is that it is an acquittal. I don’t think there is any dispute about that,” the State attorney added.

Balkaran said because of the special verdict, there can be no appeal. She said she was surprised that there was an appeal in this case. “It was a mistake in this case to allow the appeal,” Balkaran added. The Court of Appeal, comprising the then Chief Justice Clinton Bernard, Justice George Edoo, and Justice Sat Sharma, heard the appeal and gave judgment on May 4, 1988. Balkaran added, “The whole concept behind such a special verdict is that it excludes blameworthiness.” The State attorney said Parliament was clear in its intention with respect to Sections 66, 67, and 68 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

According to the provisions, persons such as Noreiga were acquitted, but because at the time of the commission of the offence they were mentally ill, they should have been treated for the following reasons:

(1) so they can be cured of the illness and,

(2) to protect the persons themselves and also society at large.

She added, “The President can order that they be treated as mentally ill persons. It does not mean they have to be sent to St Ann’s to be treated. They can be treated right there in the prison by persons who are competent to treat and deal with mentally ill persons.” Balkaran denied that Noreiga was treated arbitrarily and unfairly. “What is arbitrary, unreasonable and irrational is if the President says he wants all these persons to go to school. The role of the President is not a judicial function. The executive has no part in this. So, therefore, there is no breach of the doctrine of the separation of powers,” Balkaran added. Balkaran will conclude her submissions today.