ONE day after a High Court Judge ruled that they were illegally serving extra prison terms, six men  who collectively were imprisoned for an additional 12 years, tasted freedom at 5.55 pm yesterday, when they walked out of the State Prison on Frederick Street, Port-of-Spain.

However, for Maurice Haydes, David Pysadee, Marlon Charles, Edwin Augustine, Garvin Taylor and Steve Yorke, freedom was a bitter-sweet affair. Bitter because when they walked out of the prisons, none of their relatives or friends were waiting to greet them. Sweet because they were now free men.

Charles served an additional five years behind bars, Haydes served three months extra, Pysadee spent four extra years, Augustine served ten additional months, Taylor spent one year extra and Yorke was behind bars for an additional 12 months, making it a total of 12 years and one month that the six served as extra and illegal prison terms. “It real good to be free. The State has done me a grave injustice and I leave everything in the hands of my lawyers. Right now I just want to go home to my family,” stated Marlon Charles who had served the longest additional term of the six. “You do not know how jail is like nah. I intend never to go back, and now I just hope that society can give me a chance to get my life back, since I served out my punishment and even had to do extra time,” stated Edwin Augustine.

Ex-prisoner Steve Yorke also gave thanks to the Almighty for keeping him alive while he was in prison. The State could very well be ordered to pay  millions of dollars in compensation, since the six men have already instructed their attorneys to file motions for compensation for unlawful detention by the State, sources said yesterday. As of yesterday, two of the motions were prepared and are ready for the courts. On Thursday, Justice Peter Jamadar ordered the six to be freed immediately after he found that they were illegally serving extra time behind bars. The orders were made on six Habeas Corpus motions filed in the First Civil Court, San Fernando and argued by attorneys Brian Debideen and Prakash Ramadhar.

Yesterday at 4 pm, Ramadhar, Debideen and British-called Barrister Vish Rambarran, arrived at the State Prisons with the High Court Orders for the release of the six prisoners. Just shy of two hours later, the six prisoners all with broad smiles on their faces, walked out of the prison. Haydes had been  jailed for attempted robbery and possession of arms and ammunition, Pysadee had been imprisoned for armed robbery, Charles for house breaking and larceny and Yorke was jailed for larceny. The other two convicts did not say what they had been imprisoned for. After shaking hands with their lawyers and speaking to the media, the six men quickly walked up Frederick Street, with some of them asking motorists where the Chaguanas and St James taxi-stands were now located.

Their attorneys successfully argued that magistrates ordered the six prisoners to serve separate jail terms to run consecutively instead of concurrently. But the various aggregate jail terms in the case of each of the six, totalled more than the maximum jail sentence which the law allows. But consecutive sentences, the attorneys argued, cannot exceed three years according to a ruling by former Chief Justice Michael de la Bastide on the issue. De la Bastide cited Section 72 of the Summary Courts Ordinance, which stated:  “Where two or more sentences are passed by a magistrate by a summary court and are ordered to run consecutively, the aggregate term of imprisonment shall not exceed three years.”

Attorney Prakash Jamadar told Newsday now that the public was sensitised to the issue, he was sure that persons responsible for the passing of sentences on prisoners, would be more careful. “Now that the media has highlighted this issue so prominently, I anticipate that all magistrates would be more careful in handing down sentences,” Jamadhar said. He disclosed that 27 prisoners, who had been serving illegal additional sentences, had been freed after Habeas Corpus motions were successfully argued.

A VENEZUELAN man,  believed to be wanted for murder in his homeland, and who has been hiding in Trinidad for the past two years, was arrested Thursday night by Northern Division Task Force officers when they stormed a Malabar house.

Up to late yesterday, local police were liaising with their Venezuelan counterparts via Interpol, and also the Venezuelan Embassy. According to reports, the Venezuelan national who is 52-years-old left his homeland in Tucupita, Venezuela, two years ago reportedly to escape arrest and prosecution. Northern Division police received certain information and around 10 pm on Thursday, a team of officers from the Northern Division Task Force and the Malabar police station, stormed a house at Casablanca Crescent, Phase One, Malabar and held the Venezuelan.

Up to yesterday, the national was in police custody while diplomatic and legal lines of communication were implemented. Sources said local police, through Interpol, were liaising with the Venezuelan police. Once it is established officially that the Venezuelan is a fugitive from justice, efforts would be made to have him deported to his homeland to face charges. Police sources said the man stowed away on a cargo vessel which came into port in Trinidad to refuel.

THE BRITISH Privy Council has criticised the TT Court of Appeal for reversing an order of a High Court judge in a traffic accident case, or what is commonly referred to as a “running down” trial.

The Law Lords said it was a matter of some surprise that the Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the appeal from the judge’s order. At the end of the judgment delivered on Thursday, the Privy Council restored the judge’s order with costs. Indra Ragoonath had sued Martin Rago for damages to her vehicle following an accident on February 13, 1986 at the intersection of Rousseau Street and Cross Street, Sangre Grande.

Justice Nolan Bereaux, after hearing witnesses, ruled in favour of Rago on a counterclaim in his judgment dated October 30, 1998. However, the Court of Appeal, comprising former Chief Justice Michael de la Bastide, Justice Jean Permanand and Justice Lionel Jones, in a judgment dated December 18, 2000, allowed the appeal and ordered Rago to pay damages and costs. In one of the rare cases of the kind to go before the Privy Council, the Law Lords ruled in Rago’s favour, putting an end to a matter stretching 17 years.

The appeal was before before Lords Hoffmann, Hope, Hobhouse, Scott, and Walker. In the judgment, Lord Walker said, “it is unnecessary for their Lordships to refer to the very well known authorities cautioning appellate tribunals against interfering with findings of primary fact made by a trial judge who has had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses.” He continued, “the Court of Appeal must have had those principles well in mind and de la Bastide (with whom the other members of the court agreed) made at least a passing reference to them in his judgment. How then did the Court of Appeal reach the conclusion that it should overrule the clear findings of fact made by Bereaux J?”

Lord Walker said the judgment of the former Chief Justice put forward three main reasons. First, Justice Bereaux was criticised for treating his acceptance of Rago’s evidence and that of a witness as determinative of liability. Second, the damage to the car was an indication that it was ahead of the truck in crossing the intersection. Third, Rago must have been negligent, if for no other reason, in failing to observe the car until a moment before the collision.

Lord Walker added, “their Lordships cannot accept that these points provide a sufficient basis for overturning the judge’s assessment of the oral evidence. This is not a case where the trial judge can be shown to have wasted his advantage in seeing and hearing the witnesses, or to have overlooked or misunderstood some important item of evidence.”
The Law Lords said Justice Bereaux was faced with two totally conflicting versions of the facts and he had to decide which witnesses were telling the truth.

House Speaker Barry Sinanan has sent UNC MP Kelvin Ramnath to the Privileges Committee for referring to  him (Sinanan) and Deputy Speaker Hedwidge Bereaux as “fools”. Sinanan told the House of Representatives yesterday that he was satisfied that, prima facie, a case of breach of privilege had been made.

Earlier this week Senate President Linda Baboolal had to speak about standards of good behaviour in the Parliament. Yesterday Sinanan had to take action to deal with indiscipline. Ramnath, who is known for his caustic comments,  told a rally organised by trade unions representating Caroni that the Opposition would not be able to settle the Caroni restructuring plan of the Government in Parliament because the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker were fools. Leader of Government business, Ken Valley referred the MPs  “disparaging remarks” to the Speaker. And in doing so, Valley pointed out that Ramnath’s criticism was fuelled by the decision by the Chair on March 7 not to grant him (Ramnath) permission to raise the Caroni issue as a definite matter of urgent public importance.

The Privileges Committee has a majority of Government members. If the Committee finds that there has been a breach of privilege, it could request for an apology from the member or  reprimand him. For serious offences, the Committee can recommend the suspension of the member. Ramnath was not repentant yesterday. In fact egged on by his leader Basdeo Panday, the firebrand redoubled his attack on the Chair. “Kelvin, I want to congratulate you,” Panday said warmly, walking over to Ramnath to shake his hand,  as the Speaker concluded his statement and took his seat. Ramnath replied: “Spies!” a reference to Panday’s statement about Linda Baboolal.  Later in crosstalk, a defiant Ramnath told Valley: “I will deal with him (Sinanan) outside. He and Bereaux.”

Sinanan said the effectiveness and dignity of Parliament, as with any institution, was based on the extent to which it adhered to standards of discipline, decorum and self-respect in the discharging of its duties. Noting that the Chair was expected to be impartial and judicious, Sinanan stated that the Standing Orders were there to help him to  accomplish this goal.  While they (the Standing Orders) may be  considered irrelevant and restrictive by some, until they are  changed, all members must  abide by them, the Speaker said.

Former Corpor-ate Secretary of National Insurance Property Development Company (NIPDEC) Glen Lezama admitted yesterday that certain evidence which he had given in camera on September 11 last year before the commission was wrong.

Lezama claimed while giving evidence in camera that Edward Bayley, the former Chairman of NIPDEC, had manipulated the tendering process while he was Chairman of NIPDEC. uring cross examination by Attorney Sonny Maharaj SC, who is appearing on behalf of the former Chairman at yesterday’s hearing of the Commission of Inq-uiry into the Piarco Airport Development Project, Lezama was asked about certain statements he made about Bayley, which Maharaj said purported to destroy his client’s reputation.

In his evidence of September 11, Lez-ama claimed that the decision by Bayley to make amendments at a board meeting was not protocol. He also questioned the appointment of David Hardy by Bayley. uestioned by Mah-araj, who referred to the minutes of a board meeting and the appointment of Hardy to handle all matters relating to the new airport, Lezama admitted that Hardy was never appointed by Bayley but by the board based on a recommendation from Bayley. e added that he could not remember if Bayley was even present when the board appointed Hardy to the post. e said that Bayley was guilty of no wrongdoing while he was chairman of NIPDEC.

Lezama also cla-imed that Bayley was not guilty of any wrongdoing in introducing the clause on the contract 2.1.3 between NIPDEC and the government and said that the clause was needed to give NIPDEC the authority to negotiate with Northern Yorke Con-sortium. Hearing resumes on Monday. n Wednesday, Lezama will be cross-examined by The-odore Guerra who is representing the Commission and Christopher Hamel-Smith who is representing NIPDEC. ormer General Manager of NIPDEC Noel Garcia will also be called to give evidence next week.

GEORGETOWN, Guyana: A Guyana-born soldier serving in the US military was injured during a gunbattle with Iraqi troops near central Baghdad, her mother said yesterday.

Pfc Onica Branche, 21, a US Army food specialist based in Fort Stewart, Georgia, sustained serious facial injuries during fighting on Sunday, her mother, Patricia Branche, said by telephone from her home in West Hempstead, New York. Branche had been talking on the phone with her mother when the battle started. “We were on the telephone speaking when it went dead and I knew as a mother that something had gone wrong,” Patricia Branche said. The military said her daughter would be flown this week to an American base in Germany for medical treatment, but gave her no further details, she said.

Pentagon officials decline to comment on the specifics of wounded soldiers. As of yesterday, 342 US troops had been wounded in Iraq, Pentagon spokesman Maj Ted Wadsworth said. Onica Branche grew up in Guyana in the western town of Johanna Cecelia but left with her parents for New York in 2001 and joined the US military hoping to receive a scholarship to study nutrition at a US university. Branche, who has three older sisters still living in the South American country, is among the 31,000 non-citizens serving in the US military.

Caroni’s continuous call on the Treasury led to an emergency Cabinet meeting yesterday morning in which Government agreed to put some TT $489.3 million into the State-owned company in order to keep it operating until September. This decision came after Caroni informed Government that it had no money to continue its operations.

And as he detailed the almost bottomless pit of massive debt, Trade Minister Ken Valley told the House of Representatives yesterday, that the taxpayer just could not afford to support Caroni any longer. The company, since the first Manning administration had soaked up over $5 billion in state funding, Valley revealed. He said Caroni had used up its entire budgetary allocation for recurrent expenditure amounting to $90 million by the first week of March. Valley said when Government decided to offer Caroni workers an enhanced Voluntary Separation Package (VSEP), it had to also assume responsibility for meeting the deficit on the employees’ pension plan. The entire cost of this was estimated at $1 billion.

Valley said Caroni’s total “borrowing” to be undertaken at this time was $1.5 billion. He stressed that this did not include $735 million in loans being serviced by the government. Nor did it include the $300 million due to the State in respect of outstanding statutory liabilities (taxes, NIS, Green Fund etc). Valley stated that to date Caroni had sucked up for this year $2.614.3 billion which consisted of: a) deficit financing of $579.3 million ($489.3 million plus the $90 million given in the budget); b) debts being serviced by the State — $735 million; c) outstanding statutory liabilities of $300 million and $1 billion for the VSEP and associated liabilities.

He said when one added the $2.4 billion which was written off by the previous PNM adminstration, it took the figure to $5 billion. “What are you trying to say?” UNC MP Kamla Persad-Bissessar asked impatiently. Valley replied sternly: “Listen carefully — Caroni in its present form, is a cost which cannot be sustained by the taxpayer”.