Former murder accused loses wrongful imprisonment lawsuit against State

Former Policeman Colin Bailey – who was freed of his reputed wife’s murder after spending almost six years on remand, and had slapped the State with a $106 million lawsuit for wrongful imprisonment and malicious prosecution – has lost his civil proceedings.
“Former murder accused Colin Bailey today, Friday, March 31, lost his bid to sue the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Shalimar Ali-Hack, SC, for $100M for what he termed unlawful imprisonment and malicious imprisonment,” a statement from the DPP’s Chamber said on Friday.

Bailey’s application, the missive added, was heard and dismissed by Justice Nareshwar Harnanan at the Demerara High Court. Attorney-at-Law Dr Kim Kyte-Thomas represented the DPP. The DPP’s statement did not go into depth about the Judge’s ruling.
In the lawsuit, which was filed in December 2021 by lawyers from the law firm of Hughes, Fields, and Stoby, Bailey, who was incarcerated from February 24, 2016 to October 13, 2021, had averred that he was kept in custody even though the DPP was well aware that there was no evidence linking him to the murder of his reputed wife Sirmattie Ramnaress.

The 58-year-old man had been accused of murdering Ramnaress, 36, between August 30 and 31, 2013 at Diamond, East Bank Demerara.
The woman’s lifeless body was found at around 10:00h on August 31, 2013 at her 21st Avenue Diamond, EBD home. Her throat had been slit, her head bashed in, and her hip disjointed. The bottom flat of the house had been drenched with kerosene, and the entire house had been ransacked, which suggested that she had been robbed before being killed.

It was reported that the woman’s killers had escaped in one of her motor cars.

No basis for charge
Apart from seeking exemplary damages for the loss of $8 million in income during his 67 months on remand, Bailey had also asked the court to award him damages totalling $106M for his unlawful arrest and detention for more than five years, and the wrongful preferment of a murder charge against him when there was no basis for doing so.
He had also asked the High Court for a declaration that his arrest and continued incarceration had breached his fundamental right to liberty and a fair trial within a reasonable time, as guaranteed by the Constitution.

After a city magistrate had ruled that a prima facie case was established against him at the close of a Preliminary Inquiry (PI) on November 22, 2016, Bailey’s lawyers, in the Statement of Claim (SoC), had submitted that their client was committed to stand trial for the capital offence at the next practicable sitting of the Demerara Criminal Assizes.
They contended that the DPP reviewed the depositions from the PI and “wrongfully indicted” Bailey for the offence of murder in the absence of any evidence against him. According to counsel, their client’s case was listed for trial at every sitting of the Assizes from 2016 until 2021. They said they had repeatedly asked the DPP to present the indictment against Bailey during the period of his incarceration, but she failed and/or refused to do so.
According to the lawyers, the DPP finally presented the indictment against their client in early October 2021 before Justice Jo-Ann Barlow.
The lawyers said that on October 8, 2021, during a Case Management Conference after the presentation of the indictment, Justice Barlow asked the DPP’s representative, a State Counsel, whether there was any evidence disclosed in the depositions which implicated Bailey in the commission of the crime. They said the State Counsel indicated to the Judge that there was no evidence disclosed in the depositions which implicated him in the crime. Notwithstanding, they added, the DPP still proceeded with the conduct of the trial against Bailey in light of this admission.
However, the DPP’s Office, in its statement on Friday, noted, “There was not sufficient evidence at the High Court trial because the witness which the prosecution had intended to testify did not testify.

Formal verdict
On October 13, 2021, the State Counsel had conceded that there was no evidence implicating Bailey in the crime. And accordingly, Justice Barlow had upheld a no-case submission made by his lawyers and directed the jury to return a formal verdict of not guilty.
Justice Barlow had expressed much dissatisfaction at what transpired in this case.
She had told the State Counsel, “I must plead to the prosecutorial arm of the State to examine the material. Examine the committal records, examine all other relevant material carefully, and fulfill the constitutional mandate that dictates that no one should be before the courts unless there is some lawful reason for that person to be there.”
Regarding the aforesaid, the Judge had remarked, “This is not too much to ask”, given that every civilised society must have a system that ensures for its citizens that measure of security. In the absence of evidence, she lamented, a murder indictment should not have been preferred against him.
She added, “There is something fundamentally wrong with a justice system when a citizen can be charged, committed, and indicted when there is no evidence connecting the citizen with the commission of the offence. When that happens, it sends the wrong message to society, and persons believe that the system of trial by one’s peers is broken.
“Persons cast aspersions at the Judiciary because these persons do not know from the inception that the case was doomed to fail.”
Directing her comments at the State Counsel, the Judge had said, “This must not happen again”.
The Judge was at pains to point out that she was in no way trying to blame the prosecutor who presented the matter before her, but was rather requesting the prosecutor to convey the court’s dissatisfaction to her superiors.
The Judge had stated that presiding over Bailey’s matter was “a waste of judicial time”, since the former Policeman should not have been before the court from the inception, and given what transpired in this case, she would take on the task of getting familiar with depositions before starting trials. She made it clear that she would take “drastic measures” if there is no evidence.
In the end, she had underscored that prosecutors must be able to stand and present cases that can be properly presented, presided over, and properly deliberated on by a jury if the matter gets to that point.
Another man, Colin Grant, who was jointly charged with Bailey for Ramnaress’s murder, had pleaded guilty to the lesser offence of manslaughter in October 2021 and was sentenced to 21 years in prison by Justice Barlow.
But he will serve only eight after deductions for his early guilty plea and the period he spent on remand are made by the Prison Service.
Grant admitted that he and some friends had planned to rob Ramnaress, who was a businesswoman. He had confessed that he acted as the “lookout man” while his accomplices sneaked into the woman’s home and robbed and beat her. (Fiona Morrison)