Appeal Court warns Prisons

The Court of Appeal yesterday warned that the Prisons Services was operating at its own peril when it further held on to a prisoner who was freed by the court a few hours before.

However, Senior State Prosecutor Trevor Ward said the Authority only did so  in order to process the former prisoner Zainool Hosein, to ensure he had no other matters pending, or was serving a sentence for some other offence. The Appeal Court, comprising Justices Anthony Lucky (President) and  Stanley John, made the point following complaints by Hosein’s attorney, Ian Stuart Brook, that prison officers had led his freed client through the prisoner’s entrance after the court had quashed his conviction and set aside his sentence.

After giving its decision, the court rose and the judges left the courtroom when the prison officers escorted Hosein back to the holding cells. It was at this point Brook started making very strong objections, noting that his client was freed by the court, and should not be further detained by the Prisons Services. Brook felt so strongly about the matter that he asked for the court to be reconvened to deal with the issue. Upon reconvening, Brook told their Lordships that he was very much alarmed that his client was  led through “that particular door” since his sentence was quashed, and further expressed fear that Hosein might be taken back to prison. It was then that Ward explained that it was only an administrative procedure, which the prison authority had to go through before releasing Hosein.

Justice John, who had delivered the judgement earlier, enquired if they (Prisons Services) had to take him back for that. He observed that “ these administrative procedures” would seem as further imprisonment, and that the prison authority “is doing this at their own peril...The Court has made a ruling.” Hosein was sentenced to eight years hard labour on a conviction of robbery on September 20, 2001, by a Sangre Grande magistrate. He was charged with robbing 90-year-old Soomaria Baboolal Roopchand, of Cumuto, on  July 31, 2000 of $5. Brook’s main ground was that there was no evidence to link Hosein with the robbery on that day.

John, in his judgement, agreed that there was insufficient evidence for the magistrate to make a finding  that Hosein robbed Roopchand. He said, what was clear was that she did have some money, Hosein did come into her house; there was some sort of an altercation and sometime later she sustained injuries. But no evidence was led as to the last time Roopchand had seen the money in her bag.