Lawyer for Mingo withdraws application filed on behalf of client

Clairmont Mingo, the Applicant represented by Mr. Darren Wade, Attorney at Law filed a Fixed Date Application ( Urgent and made with Notice) on the 27th August, 2020 with affidavit in support of Application sworn to on the 27th August, 2020 and Supplementary Affidavit sworn to on the 27th August, 2020 claiming a Writ of Habeas Copus Ad Subjiciendum to be issued and directed to the Commissioner of Police in favour of the release of Clairmont Mingo.

The Fixed Date Application was heard before the Honourable Mr. Justice Rishi Persaud (Chief Justice ag.)  on Friday 28th day of August, 2020 virtually at 10:40 hours.

Mr. Darren Wade appeared for the Applicant, Clairmont Mingo. The Honourable Attorney General appeared in person together with Mr. Nigel Hawke, Solicitor General, Ms. Deborah Kumar, Deputy Solicitor General and Mrs. Beverley Bishop- Cheddie, Assistant Solicitor General for the Commissioner of Police.

Mr. Teriq Mohamed, State Counsel appeared for and on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

At the beginning of the hearing of the matter before the Court, Mr. Darren Wade conceded that the matter would soon become academic and in fact so in a matter of hours and reported to the Court that he was having access readily to his client.

The Hononourable Attorney General in his oral arguments contended that the Fixed Date Application was wholly misconceived and wrong ab initio and that Courts do not sit in academic matters and relied upon the CCJ Case of Ya’ache Conservation Trust v Attorney General of Belize (Appellate jurisdiction).

He further stated that Habeas Corpus applications address issues of unlawful arrest and or detention.  The Attorney General further underscored Applicant’s detention was not unlawful as Article 139 (4) of the Constitution permits the Police to detain a citizen for a period of 72 (seventy-two) hours before being released and taken before a Court. The period of the Applicant’s detention for 72 hours has not yet expired.

The Attorney General further argued that the Applicant’s case is also misconceived and that any allegations of breach of a person’s or suspect’s constitutional rights ought properly to be canvassed in an Application for Constitutional relief made under Part 56.01 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

On this aspect, the Honourable Attorney General further contended that the Fixed Date Application filed was fundamentally flawed as the provision relied upon was Article 144 of the Constitution which addresses the right to a fair hearing which bore no relevance to the application filed on behalf of Mr. Mingo.

In this regard the Honourable Attorney General cited the case of Attorney General of Guyana v Keshwar Ramlall (2015) 86 WIR 347 in which the Judgment of Justice Carl Singh, which stated that when invoking constitutional provisions it is incumbent to identify the specific provision(s) which is/ are alleged to have been breached and for the matrix of the evidence supporting that violation to be specifically pleaded.

In the final analysis, Mr. Wade conceded and withdrew his application filed on behalf of Clairmont Mingo and there was no order as to costs.