Judge: Killer’s rights breached

Justice Mira Dean-Armorer, who made the declaration in favour of Ian Seepersad, also ordered the Attorney General to pay his legal costs in the matter. Seepersad’s attorneys were Gerald Ramdeen and Mark Seepersad, while the AG was represented by Deputy Solicitor General Terrence Thorne and Jennifer Denis.

Seepersad and his accomplice, Roodal Panchoo, were minors when they murdered 60-year-old Roopwah Sumintra Seepersad in Piparo in March 1981. Seepersad is now about 41 years old, while Panchoo is about 42.

In making the declarations, Dean-Armorer said, "It appears to me that the applicant is entitled to have his application reviewed, whether or not there has been modification of Section 79 of the Act.

"Moreover, I agree with the learned counsel for the applicant that the review to which the applicant is entitled is greater than and different from the review prescribed by the Prison Rules. Justice Mendonca at page 18 of 19 in the case of Atkin versus the AG expressed the view at the review that the applicant, and if he so desires, his attorney, should be present to make representations. It is clear that no such review ever took place.

"It is my view that the applicant’s entitlement to a review is an example of the procedural provision, referred to at Section 5 (2) (h) of the Constitution ‘as are necessary for the purpose of giving effect and protection to the aforesaid rights and freedoms.’ Section 5 (2) (h) is one of the further and better particulars of the rights enshrined at Section 4 of the Constitution.

"In order to determine whether the applicant has suffered a contravention of his fundamental rights, it is necessary to consider whether, in the peculiar circumstances of his case, a review became appropriate and was denied.

"Justice Mendonca in Atkin expressed the view that the review should take place at when the penal element has been served — at the end of the penal element will in essence be the first review…"

She also noted that in this case there was no indication as to the time the penal element of the sentence would have been served. When Seepersad was sentenced by Justice Mustapha Ibrahim, he directed that Seepersad be detained "as long as possible…"

Dean-Armorer added, "The sentence itself imposed an indeterminate time frame, with no indication as to how ‘possibility’ should be assessed. It would be therefore entirely arbitrary of me to conjecture as to the time when the penal element of the sentence came to an end. This is a matter for the court which conducts the review. It is my view, however, that a review should be conducted of the applicant’s incarceration, forthwith and in accordance with the guidelines of Mendonca J in Atkin, and if it has not already been done."