Attorney General Anil Nandlall, SC, has asked the High Court to strike out an interlocutory application seeking interim bail for Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed.
He argued that the application is based on a jurisprudential error, since bail is a consequential remedy that can only be considered after the substantive judicial review proceedings have been heard and determined.
The application was called on Thursday before Justice Priscilla Chandra-Hanif at the Demerara High Court, where Mohamed is challenging Magistrate Abigail Gibbs’ October 30 decision to refuse him bail on an indictable cybercrime charge.
Nandlall contends that Mohamed’s legal team cannot pursue interim bail as a separate interlocutory remedy while the substantive application seeking to overturn the magistrate’s decision remains pending.
He is therefore asking the court to strike out that application rather than proceed to consider the request for temporary release. The Attorney General submitted: “This cannot be classified as an application for bail. It is not. It is a judicial review. Bail is a consequence.”
The legal challenge stems from proceedings initiated by Mohamed’s mother, Bonita Mohamed, who is acting as his next friend in the judicial review application.
The substantive proceedings seek to have the magistrate’s refusal of bail quashed and Mohamed admitted to bail.
However, with the substantive hearing scheduled for November 23, the defence subsequently filed a separate application on November 8 seeking Mohamed’s immediate release pending the determination of the judicial review proceedings.
Through the application, filed by Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde, along with attorneys Siand Dhurjon and Damien DaSilva, the defence argued that continued detention was causing prejudice that could not be remedied by a later decision.
Bonita Mohamed also proposed several conditions should her son be released, including surrendering his travel documents, remaining in Guyana, reporting regularly to a police station and refraining from contacting his co-accused or prosecution witnesses except through his attorneys.
The defence has also pointed to Mohamed’s responsibilities as Leader of the Opposition, his family circumstances and his compliance with bail conditions in separate proceedings.
The State’s objection raises a procedural question for Justice Chandra-Hanif: whether the court can entertain an interlocutory request for bail before determining the substantive judicial review challenge.
The proceedings arise from a charge under Section 9(1)(c) of the Cybercrime Act 2018, which alleges that Mohamed and Police Constable Ryan Greene unlawfully obtained and provided access to electronic data from the Guyana Police Force’s Safe Country surveillance system.
The footage relates to the October 12 shooting incident outside the Kitty residence of Senior Superintendent Prem Narine, head of the Police Force’s Special Branch Unit. The prosecution alleges that the footage was obtained from a computer system at the Police Command Centre in Liliendaal and transferred to Mohamed for $800,000.
Both Mohamed and Greene were denied bail by Magistrate Gibbs and remanded to prison until November 24. A third police constable, Ashton Chappelle, was subsequently charged and remanded in connection with the alleged unauthorised access to and transfer of the footage.
Mohamed is represented in the High Court proceedings by Forde, Dhurjon and DaSilva, while Nandlall is advancing the State’s objection.
The Director of Public Prosecutions is separately represented by King’s Counsel Darshan Ramdhani and State Counsel Madana Rampersaud in an application challenging portions of Azruddin Mohamed’s supplemental affidavit. (NCN)
Discover more from INews Guyana
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
