Former murder accused files $100.6M lawsuit against State for unlawful detention

A former Policeman who was freed of his reputed wife’s murder after spending almost six years on remand has sued the State, claiming that his unlawful detention violated his constitutional rights and deprived him of $8 million in income.
Ex-Sergeant Colin Bailey, who was incarcerated from February 24, 2016 before being freed on October 13, 2021 by High Court Judge Jo- Ann Barlow, said he was kept in custody even though the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Shalimar Ali-Hack, SC, was aware that there was no evidence linking him to the woman’s murder.

The 57-year-old man was accused of murdering Sirmattie Ramnaress, 36, between August 30 and 31, 2013 at Diamond, East Bank Demerara (EBD). The woman’s lifeless body was found at around 10:00h on August 31, 2013 at her 2430, 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 completely 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 escaped in one of her motorcars.
In a Statement of Claim filed earlier this month at the Demerara High Court by his lawyers, Nigel Hughes, Ronald Daniels, and Konyo Sandiford, Bailey is suing the Director of Public Prosecutions and Attorney General Anil Nandlall for damages totalling $100.6 million.
Apart from seeking exemplary damages for the loss of $8 million in income during his 67 months on remand, Bailey is also seeking damages for his wrongful arrest and detention, wrongful preferment of a murder charge against him when there was no basis for doing so, and his wrongful detention for a period in excess of five years.
The former Policeman also wants the court to award him damages for his unlawful detention, resulting in a breach of his fundamental right to liberty and a fair trial within a reasonable time, as guaranteed under Articles 139 and 144 of the Constitution respectively, and for malicious prosecution.
He is also seeking interest on any award for damages, costs, and such further or other order the court sees fit. His lawyers deposed that he was charged with the woman’s murder on February 24, 2016, and was remanded to prison.
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, the lawyers said, their client was committed to stand trial for the capital offence of murder at the next practicable sitting of the Demerara Criminal Assizes.
They contend that the DPP reviewed the depositions 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 that they 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 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 whether there was any evidence disclosed in the depositions which implicated Bailey in the commission of the crime.
The DPP, the lawyers added, indicated to the Judge that there was no evidence disclosed in the depositions which implicated him in the crime. Notwithstanding, the lawyers said, the DPP still proceeded with the conduct of the trial against Bailey in light of this admission.
On October 13, a State Counsel appearing on behalf of the DPP conceded that there was no evidence implicating Bailey in the crime. And accordingly, Justice Barlow upheld a no-case submission made by his lawyers and directed the jury to return a formal verdict of not guilty.
As such, Bailey’s lawyers contend that the actions of the DPP are egregious and warrant the award of exemplary damages.
Justice Barlow had expressed much dissatisfaction at what transpired in this case.
She 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 said, “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 that a murder indictment should not have been preferred against him.
Justice Barlow 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,” the High Court Judge noted.
Directing her comments at the State Counsel, the Judge said, “This must not happen again”. The Judge was keen 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 also said 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.
Justice Barlow said, too, that 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, Justice Barlow 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.
At a press conference following Bailey’s discharge, his lawyers called for a Commission of Inquiry (CoI) into the operations of the Office of the DPP. They also called for an investigation into how many citizens are in or were in the same state as their client, and what is the way forward.
Another man, Colin Grant, who was jointly charged with Bailey for Ramnaress’s murder, pleaded guilty to the lesser offence of manslaughter in October 2021 and was sentenced to 21 years in prison by Justice Barlow.
Grant admitted that he and some friends planned to rob Ramnaress, who was a businesswoman. He confessed that he acted as the “lookout man”, while his accomplices sneaked into the woman’s home and robbed and beat her.a