Episode Transcript
[00:00:01] Speaker A: The best insight, instant feedback, accountability, the all new talk radio Freedom 106.5.
[00:00:08] Speaker B: Welcome back here to Freedom 106.5 FM. Attorney at Law Fareed Ali is on the line with me this morning as we kick off this interview here this morning. Hello, Good morning.
[00:00:20] Speaker A: Good morning. Good morning, Davies. It's good to see you. It's good to be here again.
[00:00:23] Speaker B: Always a pleasure to have you on the show with me.
You know, one of the things that we are facing right now is two things on the horizon. I know. One is the soe. The SOE has ended over how many days it was for boy can't remember.
[00:00:43] Speaker A: Right now, the 31st of December to present. Right to present, which is about three and a half months. Three and a half months.
[00:00:51] Speaker B: Almost 100 days or something. So something to that because 90 days. Yeah. Could be a wrong day.
What is the possibility with the persons who were released yesterday? We have 39 of them released yesterday and a further 15 to go before the courts this morning at 9 o'clock. What, what do you anticipate next from for these 39 released detainees?
[00:01:26] Speaker A: The issue that surrounds their detention is whether the state's actions under the Emergency Powers Ordinance were justified.
And the answer to that is yes, once we've invoked the Emergency Powers Ordinance, right, it suspends the rule of law as it speaks to probable cause and reasonable grounds to arrest someone. In other words, your liberty has been suspended and all our liberty, that includes you and me, so the police could have randomly, and if I may say, use a strong word, arbitrarily come to our homes, stop us while we are in our vehicles and proceed to search.
Now, for people who have cocoa in the sun, you know, they may be impacted most by that and for people that don't, it's a mere inconvenience. But to answer your question in a succinct manner, these 39 individuals who've been released, they return to their homes. I had three clients of mine that were released around after three yesterday afternoon, Sunday, and they resumed their regular living uninterrupted by the ad hoc powers handed over to the police and the defence force to go into their homes and search or to detain them and question them.
This state of emergency and as previous states of emergencies encapsulated, it's a short term, quick, fixed measure that carries a placebo effect. And the placebo effect is simply this. Psychologically it plays on the minds of the citizens that, you know, we need not worry.
The defence Force, the police service has been given advanced powers or enhanced powers, heightened powers where they can act without having any limitation to how they conduct their fears in terms of they could enter your homes, they could use force, they can in a very, very untoward manner search your premises, go on their bed, open your wardrobe, go in your vault, going to their phones if it is their rescue. And they don't have to worry about the legal effect of somebody claiming that their constitutional rights and life, liberty, security of police, enjoyment of property is violated. But like all things, it comes to an end. And I was mentioning the placebo effect is psychologically the population breed for 90 days. This they breathe for three and a half months telling themselves that the advanced action is being taken on strategic persons. But the question remains is where do we go from now as of today, the police are back to square one. They take the reality has set it now if they want to go and arrest Deity, if they want to go and arrest Karil Ali, they must now have a reasonable basis for doing so. They must conduct an investigation. The investigation must prove that we are involved in something illegal or there's reason to believe that we're involved in something illegal. There has to be a factual basis that they're acting on and they must have correspondingly a reasonable grounds to believe that we are involved because they can't just have a hunch or a notion or feeling that we have something illegal in the house. They must, they must actually have empirical data based on investigation that there is something illegal that we are in possession of before they can come to our homes. So in the same breath what it means today is that the criminal, the so called criminal gangster gang member, he feels a certain level of empowerment this morning that am I going to, they can't just burst in, they had to come with a warrant when Gary Griffith, and I mean of all persons, I'm quoting Gary Griffith, but when Gary Griffith says that, you know, he doesn't believe in states of emergency that or state of emergencies, that is that it is a last resort, it's a stopgap measure. It means to say that part of your policing tools that the TTPS has at their disposal, it's regular investigations and investigations that are intelligence based simply meaning that if you're investigating somebody who you suspect is involved in gang violence or who is conspiring to murder, that you have intelligence and meaningful factual data that points to the fact that they are involved. It's not a question of you're working on hunches because the law as it stands today, as it stood three and a half plus one days before yesterday was that before you can arrest anybody, you must have a reasonable basis in law, a factual basis in law, and reason to believe that the person that you're investigating is involved. And if you, if you can satisfy that factual basis through investigation and have a reasonable and unreasonable grounds, believe somebody's involved based on the facts, you can't go to their premises and you can't break down the door and you can't enter the their homes and violate that constitutional right to life, liberty, security, personal enjoyment of property. Our Constitution Section 4 speaks succinctly to a person's constitutional right to freedom. And that freedom is something that is sacred and something that is available to the criminal, to the prime minister, to the president, to the businessman, to the radio announcers, to the media people, to anybody. In other words, a criminal is on equal standing as far as his rights are concerned with anybody else, even when he's a known criminal. So The Constitution Section 4 talks about one as the.
There's an existent right, regardless of one's origin, color, religion, sex, to equally equal treatment before the law and protection of the law. So the criminal, he has the same rights as you and I to protection of the law and to be treated equally in the same manner that any other citizen ought to be treated. So a state of emergency suspends that right. It impacts, it directly impacts upon him.
That's that portion of the law, that section of the Constitution, Section 4B, which speaks to the right of individual to equality before the law and protection of the law, that, that, that is suspended during a state of emergency. And that right that the individual would have to life, liberty, security, personal enjoyment of property and the right not to be private except by due process of law. Due process of law is impacted also during a state of emergency.
[00:09:48] Speaker B: But then based on what you're saying, right, I don't mean to cut you, but based on what you're saying is that under the SOE a lot of things would have been suspended. As you mentioned, they could run in your place. So simply, the country is in uproar thinking that we will have to spend millions of dollars in dealing with the repercussions and the fallout from those detainees who were not charged and had to be released. Now, here's a, here's something that, that is boggling is. It's mind boggling to me right now when you do, when you come into my premises. If I was working somewhere, I had a job, I have a job and I was working 39 of them. 39 of them. I saw some out of that 39. At least two of them had a job. I just plain devil's advocate, while I am locked up, what's happening with my employment? I am locked up. I am no my employers. Because the police ain't gonna call you have him under arrest. He's. He's being detained at this time so he can't come to work. So your employees will see that as an abandonment of the job. And in some instances if nobody gets to the employer to tell them, you could very well be unemployed because you have abandoned your job. Can these persons like those can they seek rejoice from the state and be compensated? And then what about the employer, the employers when they do get released, you mentioned that they're going back living their life as normal. But if I was employed like I am here at Guardian Media and under the SOE then pick me up and no family member was able. I couldn't get to nobody to tell my employers at Guardian I'm not there. They will see that I abandoned the job. They can't reach me on the phone because the state. I'm a phone. So they can't reach me and my family may not be around and, and maybe a month later they might find out. Well, you know, David, get hold of something under the soe. But it would have been seen by the management of Guardian Media Limited that I've abandoned my position. He had Freedom 106.5 as an announcer. So what happens in those instances where persons are held under the soe their rights were infringed upon because of the state of emergency. Now you release me. How do I get back to some form of normalcy as you mentioned?
[00:11:55] Speaker A: You know, bear in mind that a lot of these so called gangsters have state contracts. They contract us.
So they're probably employees of the state. The powers that we may have bestowed upon them are contracted to fix box drain in Laventille.
You're presuming that they have regular jobs like you and me where we accountable to an employer. These guys are four months of their own job.
[00:12:24] Speaker B: But, but. All right, so that is the gangsters. Right? But remember we said anybody can be picked up during an soe. It's not like. No, we have to have empirical data, evidence, research. You had to do your homework before you lock up Fareed Ali or Davey Murray. But in the SOE up to yesterday afternoon, they could have just run in your place. They feel they get some. They could have just said they get intellino. Where they get from? Who could question them? They get in.
[00:12:50] Speaker A: They don't even need to have Internet. Exactly right.
[00:12:53] Speaker B: So they run in my place and they pick me up. They pick you up. What is our recourse? Is it that the state will then have to pay or do we have to go through lawsuits in order to get this done? And then how do we get out? How does the state. Well, the state and getting involved. But how do we get our employers to recognize we were wrongfully detained by the state during this, this time here? How do we get back our jobs? So the question I'm basically asking you, outside of these alleged gangsters or gang affiliate members, regular citizens was also subjected to this SOE and could have been picked up. If that happened, is it that they could have then gotten some kind of redress on this? What would have been the next recourse? As an attorney, how can you advise.
[00:13:35] Speaker A: What I can say? Is this based on what I've read in the editorial in the newspaper?
The police are indicating that they focus and targeted persons known to them. So what they would have us believe is those 49 persons that were detained under the State of emergency ordinance.
Those 49 persons are persons known to be involved in criminal activity. So they seem to signal to us that these are career criminals. Now, to answer your question, if it is regular people working Guardian Media and working PTSD and working in other private firms, companies and so on were arrested, then it is likely that the employers would have been informed. Because when you are arrested, your family has the right or you as an individual has the right to inform your relatives that you're in the care of the police. Because, you know, were there to just snatch you and grab you, take you to the Eastern Correctional Facility in Arima, Santa Rosa and detain you there without your relatives knowing, then they may be thinking that you're missing. You're one of those 60 persons that disappear every year. On average, 60 persons disappear in this country every year. You're one of those 60 persons that disappear or possibly maybe one of the 30 that are never to be found ever again. So in law, in law, once you've been detained or you've been arrested, even in these times, then you, your family has to be informed, right? You also have the right to an attorney. So if it is these individuals have attorneys and very often they do, they have an attorney on alert, on retainer, on retainer.
So they quite within the right to say, I would like to hear from my attorney. I would like to see my attorney. In my case, three of my clients were there and I received Calls from the welfare department at Eastern Correctional Facility where my clients asked to see me. So you're allowed a phone call. So it means that your employer would get an opportunity through your family to be informed that you would detain. Now, with regard to redress in a very succinct manner, if it is under the Emergency Powers Ordinance, you will detain.
The state on face value has the right to detain you if you're known to be known to the police in some way and being known to the police is known to be involved in criminal activity, known to be associating with. With gang members, known to be keeping the company of persons who are known to be in criminal activity. In other words, the police must justify that you are known in that regard. Now, if they can't and they just randomly arbitrarily pick you up on face value, they could do that. But at the same time, if it is you have no criminal record and you're not known to be associated with anything criminal or persons known to be involved in criminality, then the state has to take that extra step to justify why they held you in reality. I am not saying that the 39 or the 49 persons that were arrested, the 39 who have been released have no redress.
They very well may have some redress. But I believe based on what I'm reading, that charges, though it was preferred on 14 persons sometime before yesterday or leading into this morning, and they will be appearing before court.
We receive information through the editorial of the newspaper that other persons are going to be charged or those persons who are detained are going to be charged over the course of the next few months. Now, one strategy the police uses is they, when they retain you and they detain you for a sustained and protracted period of time, and I'm saying sustained and protracted in this instance, if they want anything you, they arrest you and you and your freedom is suspended under the station. They tend to lay a charge by laying a charge. It could be any frivolous charge. And when I say frivolous charge, from summary offenses to indictable offenses, it means to say that they've justified your detention.
Now, what you can get them on is if it is they arrest you for loitering, right? You're sitting on a bench, 2 o'clock in the morning, around the Savannah. The police stop, they ask you what you're doing there and you can't offer a reasonable explanation.
They can arrest you for the offense of loitering because you have not been able to satisfy the police.
While you were sitting there. Now, a reasonable explanation might be I'm on insomnia, I can't sleep. And I decided, you know, I'd rather sit on a bench around the savannahs breathing fresh air than lying on my bed all night staring at the ceiling, wondering what it'll be like to be lying on the ceiling staring at the bed. So the long and short of it is that when we examine the, the circumstances of the detained individuals, the police in saying that all charges will be laid against the others over the next few months, it's their way of saying that I didn't just randomly arrest him, we've arrested them and we believe that they were involved in something that is uniquely criminal and we are going to lay a charge. By laying a charge, they're covering their backs in the sense that they're justifying that we have that there was a reason for holding them so they find something to charge them for. What happened in the 2011 state of UBJC, some officers said when the matters went before the court that they basically profile individuals, arrested them and then proceeded to find something to charge them for. In other words, there was no reasonable basis or no factual basis for arresting them. They simply profile them before their parents falling off the, the waistline, the drawers showing they're looking gangsterish, they're diamond on Duncan Street. So what good law abiding citizen will be on Duncan Street? The pants fall off your waist and rubber slippers so they lock you up.
The police are saying at that stage now when they arrest you based on profiling or based on the community you come from, or the way you look or the way you talk, the way you address the police when they approach you, they then try to find something to charge you for. It could be loitering. I'm just using loitering as an example. If it is telling police about, wait, coming up in my face, coming around me, they might want to arrest you now for assaulting an officer.
And assaulting an officer is simply causing the officer to feel fearful based on your actions and the things that you see or based on the fact that you're pointing in their direction with your hands flailing all over the place, that if you threaten so they find things to charge you for assault, maybe they try to arrest you and you pull away, just simply pulling away.
It's resisting. You don't need to pull away and run. You simply pull away and you stand up, right, and they lock you up for resisting. So what I'm saying is the police who cover themselves may very well prefer charges who say simple charges against any of those 39 persons simply to say, well, you know what?
We approach them and based on how they conducted themselves, we have to lay charges of various nature. Now one is entitled in law devi to upon being arrested and a charge being laid to be taken before a court and have a prompt hearing. A prompt hearing is a hearing for bailiff under a state of emergency. One could be taken to court at any point in time. Remember your liberty suspended. And you may be that. But the mere fact that they have had to prefer a charge to investigate you in relation to a particular charge, loitering, assault, battery, grievous bodily harm, resisting arrest, breach of the public peace, that may trigger the need to conduct further investigations surrounding you.
So one thing listed in there is the domino effect.
[00:22:23] Speaker B: All right, we're gonna keep you on the line with us after the 8 o'clock hour and the sport report that comes up right after the 8:00 news. You have mentioned some things there that is real frightening and concerning to me. You, I mean those of you listening not able to see Attorney Ali, his gestures as we have this zoom line going. But, but we'll talk in the next hour most definitely. And your phone calls will be up next. Continuing our discussion here with attorney at law Fareed Ali. As we come off of what is happening on page five, occupying serious real estate on page five of our guardian of democracy. This morning we had 39 detainees released from the SOA, which is the state of emergency that ended on April 13th, which was yesterday. All right, so yesterday, that's it from midnight last night into this morning. It's a different era. Hello, Good morning caller.
[00:23:20] Speaker C: Hello, hello, good morning.
[00:23:25] Speaker B: Good morning.
[00:23:26] Speaker C: Yes, this morning I want to deal with the senior council who leave the UNCLE and go across to pnl. I want to tell him to tell the population what votes he was given or what votes he would offer if they win this election.
I also want them tell the population explain the property tax, the ripple effect it will have on the population when they can't pay the property tax five years from now and have a next one who was in separate air council.
He also come down on the uncle. He was speaking on the platform of black dignity. How the black people don't get nothing to achieve. I want to know if Young is a black man and if he going to support that instead of supporting pet ilo Beckles who was a foundation member of the pnm. I thank you.
[00:25:04] Speaker B: All right. Thank you very much for your call. This Morning. I appreciate your concerns. We will probably address that in the next 30 final 30 minutes of the show as we continue with attorney at law Farid Ali here this morning. You know, you mentioned a lot of things in the last hour about the constitutional rights of persons being infringed upon once a state of emergency is in, is enforced. However, you, you did mention that the police, if the breeze blow hard by you and they know something with you, they could just pick you up. They don't need no warrant. So is it categorically clear at this time, can we say it's clear that those 39 detainees that were released that we don't have to be fearful or worried about any backlash or any lawsuits where it's going to cost the taxpayers money in the, in the long run, is it a done deal, they were released and that's it, or do we have to worry that coming up in the not too distant future we can start to see these lawsuits coming up and maybe three years down the road who get half a million, who get 1.2, who you know, are we going to see these type of things or do we not have to worry?
[00:26:12] Speaker A: More than likely, once they can afford an attorney, the attorney would prepare pre action letter highlighting the abuses that they would have been, they would have suffered or they may have suffered whilst they were in the care of the police or where they were in the care of the, of the prison, which is the ECRC in Santa Rosa and the Kohl and Go facility in Arupa, more than likely when they were detained, apart from their freedom being suspended, their liberty meaning that they can't leave, they're in the care of the prison. There are other rights that are not suspended under a state of emergency. Your liberty may be suspended. Your right to practice your religion if you're Islamic and they're not giving you meals that are consistent with what a Muslim's supposed to eat, meaning they they're not giving you halal food. If it is you are a diabetic and you're supposed to be on medication and you have to receive your insulin every day or your insulin related tablets every day and you didn't receive it on time.
These are the areas that the attorney should be zeroing on. The attorney knows that if it is, they won't be root of I am seeking redress for the unlawful detention of my client that they may have a very weak plank to stand on. Given the fact that the state of emergency justified the suspension of one's liberty by way of freedom of movement, the Areas to focus on would be where though my, their liberty would have been curtailed and they were by choice, by no choice, had to remain at the nation's prison or the correctional facility.
There were other rights that when though your liberty has been detained, your liberty has been curtailed and you're detained, other rights that ought to have been obeyed and that is the right to practice one's religion and rights arising out of shame. So if it is you were beaten by prison officers while you were in custody, then that in itself is a violation of your person.
The prison officers will have to justify why it is you have to use unreasonable force or unlawful force. What I could tell you this is that when I was speaking with, with a few of my clients who were there, they said much effort was being made not to have by prison officers, not to lay hands on death.
In other words, you don't want to create a circumstance where something occurs and one has to use force. And then you turn around now and say, well, I've suffered injury and I wasn't given proper medical care. So you beat a man, you don't take him to the hospital, he develops an abscess CD develops some sort of medical situation that in itself may trigger the need for legal action. So in answering your question, the next few weeks, days into weeks is going to tell those individuals if they were sensible, if they are sensible, I would be checking myself into a public health facility right now. If I were one of the 39 released yesterday and I would, I would demonstrate my symptoms. I would be getting pain in the back of my ears and pain down in my throat and pain in my hip and asthmatic conditions. Would I let it manifest itself.
I, I would get serious disease spells and I'll have to be hospitalized and born out of the, of the diagnosis and the prognosis moving forward, then my attorney would act accordingly.
So I accept that you have, you have to detain me. The state of emergency ordinance indicates that they could arrest me because I known to have friends who are involved in criminal things. Or maybe I had a criminal past, but you know, I can't wash myself, I can't wash those sins away. Although I'd give up my life and the police detained my rights. You had the right to detain me, but you know what? You didn't have a right to deny my medication. You shouldn't have beaten it. You shouldn't have denied him a right to practice for religion. And there are other rights an individual may have and those rights are laid out in the constitution. It Talks about the right of an individual to equality of treatment from any public authority in the exercise of any function. So not because I am a known gangster, you can deny me on time because I'm entitled to breakfast, lunch and dinner. If I got no breakfast and I get lunch and dinner, well, that's a violation. I'm a human right.
Well, if it is ulcerated stomach act up because I didn't get, I didn't get my morning breakfast. What if it is you give me tea with milk and I lactose intolerant. So I mean, these suits will come. It will come. All right. It must come.
[00:31:45] Speaker B: So one texter is saying, Davey, your guess is contradicting himself. He said the police will find a charge for you when arrested. That stands to reason that you, that, that you were arrested for no valid reason. That's one. Also, you have persons that were arrested and released without charge. This, there must be some redress for that. You simply can't arrest and hold persons without charging them. That amounts to abuse of authority. Now, let's talk about the arrest. But before we talk about it, let's take a quick break. The arrest I want to ask you about is can police arrest you without charging? And if your answer to that is yes, what are the circumstances mitigating that? How long can they hold you before they can, before they charge you? And if they're not charging you, when is it constitutionally right for them to release you? We take a break. Those are questions we will address coming back. Also, what's the difference between a regular prisoner, a remanded prisoner, that is, and a SOE prisoner? We'll take a break. Engage with Davey on the all new.
[00:32:43] Speaker A: Talk Radio Freedom 106.5.
[00:32:47] Speaker B: Shake up your morning with the morning.
[00:32:49] Speaker A: Rumble on Talk Radio Freedom 106.5.
[00:33:10] Speaker B: Once again, good morning and welcome back. 627-3223 and 625-2257. Also, you can WhatsApp me at 3061 Texter is saying, I'm fed up of hearing the rights of criminals. What about the rights of each and every victim of these criminals? That's a good question. So we were talking very quickly as we continue our discussions here with Fareed Ali, the attorney at law. Let's talk a little bit about how long can a police officer arrest you without charging you?
1 as the first question, what are the ramifications of circumstances surrounding officers? What is the scope that they can work within? If they arrest you and they didn't charge you before, it would be deemed Unconstitutional that they held you infringing on your rights so they can arrest you. But what is the duration stipulated by law? That they have to lay a charge, and if they don't lay the charge, then they have to release you. And with that time frame, there's nothing that you could do about it to seek redress. You know, let's clear up those issues, those misconceptions.
[00:34:24] Speaker A: There's no legislation in place in this country, no law in place in this country that states the exact period for which the police can detain you or the exact time frame in which the police can detain you when arrested. But the court, in making rulings in the past when this issue arose, indicated that once you're arrested, that two days is a reasonable period. Two days is a reasonable period for you to be detained. However, it doesn't mean to say that once arrested, the police can hold you for 48 hours because the court says two days is a reasonable period. Two days is simply. The court said two days is a reasonable period by way of reference. But that is a court ruling. That is not law.
So law is what exists in paper. In terms of legislation that is passed.
We don't have any legislation that speaks to what is a reasonable period. In England, there's what you call the Police and Criminal Evidence act that says that you could only be detained for 24 hours. And if you are held beyond 24 hours or to be held more than 24 hours, you must get permission, leave of the court to hold you for an additional 24, and then further leave of the court to hold you for an additional 24. In other words, every 24 hours, the police in England must seek permission from the court to hold you a bit longer. Now, in triad, we don't have that. So what the court has done in the past in looking at situations where persons were detained is they have said that two days is a generally acceptable period for detaining someone. However, if it is you arrest someone and you realize that you arrested the wrong individual, you arrested a man who looks like, who fits the profile of the person you're really looking for, and then you recognize that you have the wrong man, then you can't say you're holding him for two days, you ought to release him.
So when you arrest somebody, if it is you have the right man, then you ought to determine whether there's a basis in law for holding him, because you don't want to just arrest the man that you heard is involved in something criminal or may have committed something criminal. And Then when you question him, you realize that he has a. He has a clear alibi, meaning that the offense of which you heard that he committed. Meaning, let's say I had an instance where one of my clients was arrested and on the suspicion having committed a murder in Trinidad. And he said I couldn't because I was in Tobago. And he produced documentation, tickets to show that he flew out of trial on the Friday. This man died on a Saturday. And my client was out of Triangle on the Friday and returned on the Sunday. So that clear alibi, they released him. So in answering your question, 48 hours is what the court recognizes as a reasonable period. But the police must still justify when they hold you, even for five hours, even for two hours, that there's a reasonable basis for holding you. It can't be just an arbitrary lockup in a state of emergency. It could be as random and arbitrary as we just pick you up based on you are known to be a mischievous kind of guy and therefore we detain you.
Now, somebody said earlier that I was contradicting myself. Allow me to say this. I said that you can be arbitrarily arrested during a state of emergency. In terms of they profile you, meaning you're on Duncan street, you're in a hot spot, it's irregular hours, and they profile you and they arrest you.
It could be as random and as arbitrary as that. But what they have said, the police are saying that the people they targeted, those 50 persons, were persons known to the police. So in other words, they're known to be involved in criminal things. So don't get me wrong when I say that, you know, one can be arbitrarily arrested, but at the same time, only known persons known to the police are to be arrested. The distinction that the police created is that in this state of emergency, in order to avoid lawsuits and to avoid arbitrary suspension of a man's rights, they targeted persons they knew to be involved in something criminal.
[00:38:50] Speaker B: What is irregular hours?
[00:38:54] Speaker A: When you say regular was, you refer to what irregular.
[00:38:56] Speaker B: You mentioned. You're seen on Duncan street in during irregular hours.
[00:39:01] Speaker A: All right. No, Well, I simply mean this.
If it is, you can't. If it's, it's 2:00 in the morning, if it's 3:00 anymore, there isn't a. There isn't some sort of public activity taking place on that street. And I'm using Duncan. It could be any place. Right?
It could be by the dial in Arima, it could be by the boardwalk in Karen Arch, it could be on Frederick Street. If it is your window shopping on Frederick Street, 2 o'clock in the morning, the police can simply ask of you. That is irregular. I mean, most people operate between eight to four. So if you're working, if you're working evenings, you work between four and let's say midnight. But I would say irregular would be in the course of the middle of the night, unless you're a security officer, what are you doing on window shopping 2:00 in the morning? So an irregular. Irregular, that is irregular simply means hours when persons are not known to be in public spaces.
[00:40:04] Speaker B: All right, Based on your assessment there, I hope that cleared it up. Let me listen to this, David.
[00:40:12] Speaker A: If there's 50, these 50 persons that, that were arrested and detained during the SOE, were known criminals for known activities.
[00:40:20] Speaker B: And you arrest them and some were.
[00:40:21] Speaker A: Released, means that you don't have evidence, you're speculating.
[00:40:26] Speaker B: I was about to bring that point to, you know, Fareed, because you're saying I'm known.
So under the soe, you detain me because I am known to be. You have, you have, you have knowledge that I involve in certain things. Right? Now, remember, it's not what you know is where you could prove. You have said that time and time again. You may know somebody doing something, but you can't prove it. So it's not what you know is where you could prove. So I am known.
[00:40:51] Speaker A: That is why, that's what I'm cutting across you. That is why it is. You have a state of emergency because you have a lot of persons who are known to be involved in things, but they operate that fine line between, in those gray areas where you can't really get, get him on anything.
[00:41:06] Speaker B: But that is the point. So your whole material in the sod, so you're still in game or nothing. Because even though your whole middle during the soe, right. Are still operating between the gray lines or the, or the what you just described, but you still can't convict me, you still can't really bring a serious charge. I will stand up in court and if you bring a fictitious charge, as you mentioned, okay, you pull back a little bit when I hold many police hold your hand, you pull your hand. You didn't run. You just pull your hand and you stand up and you watch the police like, what are you doing? He tell you what you're doing and they allow him to arrest you. They could still charge you for resisting because you just move your hand when they try to hold your hand. You move it because you're watching Them.
So the thing is.
[00:41:48] Speaker A: Go ahead to zeroing on what the callers say. Although you're known to the police, right? You're known to be involved in something criminal, but they would have had information that you perhaps was in the midst of something that you were in and around this time frame. Remember when they declared the state of emergency, six persons died that weekend, five in prison land and one was gunned down by the Bessemer street police station in east border Spain. Yes, There was a, there was heightened criminality in and around that time period. We were approaching 100 murders for the quarter January into the end of March. In fact that would have been, it was declared on 31st December. So it was really that period September into December.
[00:42:30] Speaker B: Right.
[00:42:30] Speaker A: So because of that and when we bear in mind September into December 2024, look where the murder targets were. We were already 500 plus murders. So we were in a position where because of the information they would have been getting from the Strategic Services, from the National Security, from their own investigative material, these persons known to be involved in criminality, under the normal investigative process, they may not have been able to arrest them.
So what they did is they arrested some of them using the tool of declaring a state of emergency in order to avoid or in order to prevent further criminality that the police are of the belief that they are involved in or the belief that they are the major players in. So being known is one thing, but it's known to be big players in the game of crime.
[00:43:33] Speaker B: But still.
[00:43:34] Speaker A: So it's not just because you have a big reputation, right? You're involved in gang 6, 7, 8, 9, or your name is a certain Islamic name your carry that you just, we just arrest you. It's that we have information, but we simply may not have intelligence, but we don't have the actual, we don't know the exact, the actual circumstances in which you operate.
So you may know that there's going to be an attempt on a man's life this weekend, but you ready to know the dynamics of when it's going to happen? What, by what means, what you know, the persons who are, who are, who, name calling, execute.
[00:44:27] Speaker B: So in other words, your name calling, that is the intelligence. Basically, you know, your name calling. We hearing that you is the big man down here, you running the show. Intelligence have shown us this. But if the intelligence is giving us one in one set of information, why is it that we're not gathering enough intelligence where we can seriously convict you before the courts? Time and time again we recognize the Flawed circumstances of humankind. And I say that across the spectrum because again, out of 10 things that we need to convict you, we probably need two and a half to arrest you and charge you. So we arrest you.
[00:45:08] Speaker A: It's easier to arrest somebody and it's much more difficult in order to gather evidence that is relevant and admissible.
[00:45:16] Speaker B: So what's the difference between detaining and arresting? Is it not the same.
[00:45:22] Speaker A: In reality? A detention is an arrest. When you detain someone, it's because you have the belief that they committed something or they are about to commit a crime, or they are committing or they have committed a crime and you detain them and to detain somebody to suspend their rights.
But you could detain for questioning and choose not to arrest. In other words.
[00:45:45] Speaker B: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Fareed, back it up. You now said you could deto. So wait, wait, wait. You now said something there. And I want to be clear because I don't want nobody who's saying I'm going to attack you right now to be confused. You just said to detain somebody is to suspend movement, which is arresting the person. And then you just said that you could detain them for questioning. So you're suspending them, their movements, but you then, then you could arrest. So that's the contradiction there that I believe some people are getting.
[00:46:19] Speaker A: If it is, I stop you in the road, right? And I have reason to believe that, you know, you ought not to. You seem to be up to something in questioning you, I might realize I might, I might develop a basis for suspecting you're about to commit a crime. So at that stage now, me detaining you there may result in arrest because questions upon your, upon detaining you reveal that you're, you're really up to no good and, or you're about to commit a crime and therefore I have to arrest you. All right, you can detain somebody. You can detain somebody for questioning and you could detain them and after questioning determine that you need to place them under arrest because they were involved in something criminal or they are about to commit a crime.
[00:47:09] Speaker B: So then it is clear. Can we clearly state that detaining someone is not the same as arresting the person, but they carry the same similarities in terms of suspension of free movement.
[00:47:23] Speaker A: Well, right. Both of them involve suspension of their movement. One is temporary and one may be more than temporary to decide decided to arrest you.
[00:47:31] Speaker B: So when the commissioner of police was detained, that could not have been considered an arrest.
[00:47:40] Speaker A: It may not have been considered arrest unless it is she was unless they have reason to believe she was actually involved in something that warrants investigation.
[00:47:56] Speaker B: So according to law, and I feel you're coming back with me, you know, you're coming back according to law, the legislation of the land detention of somebody's person. You're detained somebody, they are the difference with the arrest and detention is, is, is the time frame. One is temporary and one can be what. So is it that when I detain you, I didn't read you your Miranda rights, but under arrest, that is when I read here your Miranda rights. Is that the distinction between the two?
[00:48:29] Speaker A: Because it's a little, that is one aspect of it. You can detain somebody for questioning and the questioning after questioning them, you determine that there's no reason to believe that they're doing anything criminal or about to embark on something criminal and release them. So once you detain them to question them, the police is entitled to detain and question individuals and release them if it is the they, they, they are form the view that they're not up up to something criminal.
[00:48:55] Speaker B: So here's the thing. Here's the thing.
[00:48:57] Speaker A: Detention to your questioning, if it is. However, when they detain you and they question you, they believe that you're you, that, that you're involved in something criminal. At that point, they review your rights. As in you have the right an attorney, you have the right to remain silent, inform your attorney that you're under arrest and you have the right to, to silence.
And you have the right and they explain to you that if it is you choose not to say anything, it is your right to remain silent. And if you choose to say something, whatever you say may be taken in writing and used in evidence against you. So the reading of rights, what you refer to as Miranda rights, we don't have that. The expression we don't have Miranda rights in the American form existing here, what we have is what we call the judge's rules, which is another, which is a facet of Miranda rights. But it's the same, it's the, the spirit of it is the same meaning that you must explain why you, why you detain the individual. And then you must explain to them what, what are their rights in this detention? And you must explain to them that they're not only detained, but they're under arrest. And the reason for being under arrest, if it is you're detained and they, they, they don't. They tell you you're under arrest, but they don't explain to you the reason for being under arrest, then that is that that detention is unlawful. You must. You must be explained. The reason for detaining and arresting you must be.
[00:50:27] Speaker B: So, okay, so once the detainer for questioning, they have to tell you why they're detaining you. And this detention does not have a legislative time frame when they detain you because they're arresting you, they could arrest you. And according to the, you know, judicial review, it is of the Court's opinion that two days, 24 hours is sufficient. But that is not law. So that. That is an arrest without charge. So I arrest you, you're under arrest. You have the right to remain silent. The reading what you call your judges. What rights?
Judges.
[00:51:02] Speaker A: Rules.
[00:51:03] Speaker B: So the ha Judges rules in Trinidad and Tobago and they put you in Bessel Street Station in a cell. So you're under arrest now. And they read your judge's rules. And then you ask, why am I under arrest? And they say, well, for breaking an enter or motor vehicle, Larson, you even murder. They tell you, waiters. But then while you're under arrest and they're telling you why they have you under arrest, the question here, this is under arrest. The question here. And they realize, nah, boy, like. Like you mentioned, the guy was in Tobago. Wherever. Wherever. All right, not you. Sorry about that.
That could take seven days.
That could take two weeks. Because legally, legislatively, based on what you said, there's no time frame. So I could hold you, I could go home. I could go on a vacation in Tobago and rest myself in. In or Antigua as the arresting officer and then come back home and then come and chat and, and decide. Let. Let me go through this in the meantime, for the next seven days while I go in Antigua with my wife and children, you in a cell in Maloney Station or LA waiting for me. Because when they call, they say, well, the officer is unavailable at this time. When I come back seven days later, I question you. I now realize, well, you know, now I hold you wrong. That is basically what you're telling me. I know for it, and that is the true.
[00:52:17] Speaker A: There are persons who have been arrested and they've been kept in custody. Three weeks at a station, two weeks at a station. When it is, you don't have a lawyer, right? The police could keep you for whatever period they feel.
Now, when you have a lawyer, the lawyer could file a writ of habeas corpus. A writ of habeas corpus is where you write to the. You write a letter to the Attorney General of Trian Tobago and the police and ccd the commissioner of police, indicating that Davy Murray was Arrested on Friday around 6pm on, on Frederick Street. He was taken into the care of police officers and is housed at the St Vincent street Police Station. CID and you're writing the Commissioner of Police and you're CCing the AG vice versa to inform them that this is the situation. And as his lawyer, as the lawyer of Davy Marie, I wish to inform the powers that be that the family has visited the station, have made inquiries as to why it is they arrest him and they said it's a police investigation. Please leave the station. Yeah. In other words, the police have not offered anything factually to assist them as to the reasoning behind keeping it. And also you, as the attorney went to the station, you've been asking about, you've been allowed to see a client but you haven't been able to see the investigator involved. The investigators on two days lead, he arrested a client, he put him in a cell and then he take two days off. So this. And the police at the station is saying that, well, the investigator isn't here, he was simply arrested and brought to this station. We were told he was here on inquiries. When we checked the log, he was brought in on inquiries. But we can't inform you as to what's happening because we weren't the ones that arrested it. So what the lawyer can do at that point in time is having written to the Police Commissioner informing him that his client was arrested and two days have passed. You can then write to the criminal registry of the High Court of Trinidad and Tobago indicating that you're seeking an audience to the judge in order to have the police summons before the court and a representative from the Attorney General some months before the court, to come before a judge with and produce Davey Murray, meaning the arrested individual, and explain to the court the reason for the detention of the person and the suspension of their rights, their liberty. So you can, though you can be kept for an indefinite inordinate period of time whilst the police are investigating you as a citizen, has the right to file a writ of habeas corpus, which is nice, fancy legal term that speaks to seeking an audience before a judge. And if the judge, having brought the police before the court, meaning the police who arrested you and the police cannot justify the reason for holding you this long, meaning two days, three days, four days, they just can order that you be released.
So basically there is redress when you are arrested, but you must be able to afford an attorney in order to file, in order to seek some sort of redress or to acquire your freedom for read only, it's as simple as that.
[00:55:55] Speaker B: Farid.
[00:55:55] Speaker A: We don't have legislation. The Law Reform Committee has not seen it fit to pass legislation or to pass into law definite time frames in which an individual could be detained.
And we haven't copied the the English model of you. You can only hold me for 24 hours and you must apply for more time before court to detain me further. Fareed, your only redress is to file a writ through your attorney if you can afford one.
[00:56:24] Speaker B: Far read. You, I am sorry to say, have just described a very, very fearful thing to persons in this country.
That is not an easy thing what you just said there. It is damning information and it certainly has it people are messaging me. It has struck fear. Police basically have this authority given to them that they can, for want of a better term, if they want to harass you, they can.
That's basically what it is because I remember in 2009, 2010, no, 2009, I remember the year exactly where I remember the officer who spoke to me too and I remember him saying to me and folks, this is so scary. We really need to get different legislation in this country and laws to help citizens, law abiding citizens that if police want to target you because you was with a woman or with a woman or something like that, he can simply create something, concoct something that he knows can't stand up in court and have you arrested. You're arrested, you're charged and you're going before our magistrate and you had to get bail and you had to go to court for the next year and a half while he might hit, hit and miss a few saying that they didn't get the evidence, they're still working on it. And when the magistrate get fed up and your lawyer get fed up and say this is overdoing it now at the magistrate's discretion, they dismiss the case. But you would have spent money because every appearance your lawyer charges you. You are pandong in the system and you can't miss court as the defendant because you can be arrested on a warrant and your bail revoked. But the officer as you write, well, when the prosecutor said well ma'am, the officer is on vacation at this time or he's on injury leave at this time. We have and Fareed, what are we, what are you, what are we saying? What are we doing as citizens? What is really happening? Because that is frightening. You know, we so like the Westminster system, we so like the, the lawlords of London. Why haven't we adopted that policy of the 24 hours and you had to apply for another one. Because when you had to go through the whole nine, the whole 90 thing to get this thing, you go do your work better. So there's no, there's no accountability to officers when they take Fareed Ali or Davie Murray into custody. And that is scary. I have a call on the line. Hello. Good morning.
Good morning.
All right, Fareed.
[00:58:51] Speaker A: I remember some years ago there was a case where I was at the. At the court and they read a charge to an individual for he was. He had a place.
So when you hear the charge of on so and so date and so and so time in a public place, notably the tunapuna market, he exposed himself when that, that is what the charge read. When the facts. When the magistrate asked the individual whether he was guilty or not guilty, he said, guilty without cause. So they said, well, there's no such thing as guilty without cause. It's either you're guilty or not guilty. If you're guilty, then you're guilty. If you're not guilty, you're not guilty. So you have to choose one. There's nothing as guilty at all. Cause. He said, well, if I may be permitted, it's all.
I was simply peeing on a lamppost, peeing against a lamppost. And the officer approached me and asked me what I'm doing. He said, I told him it looked like I do not pee on a lamp post. But the officer didn't like the way. He said that the officer didn't like the way he approached him and the answer he got and proceeded to charge him for exposing himself in a public space. That's a criminal charge, a summary criminal charge. But the exposing simply means that he took out his business in a place that is deemed generally the public space and p. And a lamppost, that the lamppost is not a urinal, it's not a toilet, it's not a private space. So if you decide to pee in an open savannah, as most males do, or you can't hold this thing any further, you pee on a wall somewhere, you could be charged with exposing yourself in a public space. In a public space.
That's an example of the wide discretion police officers have. They can charge you for just about everything or anything that they choose. They can find something to charge you for in the same way that I gave you an example earlier where they can charge you for loitering if you can't offer a reasonable explanation for why you're in a particular place. You're walking in Victoria Gardens in Diego Martin, you're taking a random walk through Bill and Gulf View in, in San Fernando. You're walking through West Moorings in a, is a, in a residential place. But you don't live there. You can't just randomly go for a walk in these big shot areas. If they question you and they ask you what are you doing here? Because they profile you and a black man will be in these kind of these communities, you know, be in, in Bayside Towers. So you either working there as a cleaner or you're up to no good. So what if you just, what if.
[01:01:26] Speaker B: You house view, you know, you might park up your car and you take a little stroll through because maybe you're looking for ideas, you have some, you're doing some, some renovations or you want to do some renovations home by you. I personally have driven through the same West Moorings down Gulf View and West Moorings Port of Spain area and down Gulf View. And I look at somebody you know are going to do something. But I pass through the area and I just watching some of the houses, somebody landscaping, you know, an idea is just coming through my mind. So if I'm stopped and I tell the police, well, you know, that's working for landscaping ideas. I just taking a stroll, walking. But where you live in? Well, I live in, up in the east, but I came down to the mall and I got what I needed to get. So I just decided to walk through the area, find it, look nice and I walk in through. I could be arrested for loitering.
That is not. Could that be deemed as reasonable?
[01:02:08] Speaker A: That's a reasonable explanation. In all honesty, what you have done is you've explained that you know, you admire the architecture and you like all the landscaping is done in this community. And that's a reasonable explanation. But the police could simply say, okay, so I think you did enough perusing for the day. There are people living in these houses that would feel uncomfortable if you're pulling up in front of their premises and looking in because they may not know that you're landscaping, that you're looking at their landscaping or you're admiring the Greek architecture and they may call the police or they may simply approach you. But if I am thinking that you're somebody who attracted to their person and their property, so you're creating a risk for yourself when you're just randomly doing what you're doing. What you may be able to do if you want to be correct is perhaps ring the doorbell and tell them, as you know, I'm just admiring your property. Don't think I'm up to no good here. But you can't just randomly walk into people's spaces and not be able to explain place.
[01:03:16] Speaker B: You're saying people's spaces, right? I ain't going in here. Yeah, I don't know. I walking in the area. I walking down the street. I am on the government's road. Not even on the pavement. I'm on the side of the road, just walking. And you're just looking in the yard. You're just looking around and you're just looking and admiring. You ain't taking no pictures.
You ain't take out a phone and you just watch and you tell yourself, I like that planting.
[01:03:35] Speaker A: You're on the government road, watching that private property.
[01:03:38] Speaker B: Why? What's wrong with that?
[01:03:39] Speaker A: Well, there's a law.
[01:03:41] Speaker B: Is it. Is this a station to watch private property. Only government property.
[01:03:44] Speaker A: I could watch her if it is. You're causing persons to feel uncomfortable with your pairing and peeping and perusing. Okay.
They don't know any climate that we live in where people are targeting persons of a certain social standing or people who they believe have money or they have young children. They don't know if you're a pedophile. They don't know if it is you're looking to. So.
[01:04:12] Speaker B: Because you don't know.
But. Because, but you see, again, that is left to speculation. There is no facts to show that I am a pedophile or I come into wrong place.
[01:04:23] Speaker A: Right. So that is why it is. The police will ask questions of you and you ought to explain yourself. And if they figure that the answers you're giving, uncompathetic, as we say, right. The answer is reasonable, then they could, they could arrest you for loitering. Once you provide a reasonable explanation. And I'm saying that the mere fact that they're looking at the people property with a view to architectural design, or you're looking at it for a defined purpose. You are. Your intention is not criminal, then you're within the law. So they may not be able to take it for loitering, but they may be able to tell you, listen, what you're doing here is not the type of community that people would welcome this sort of thing. So you perhaps need to leave.
[01:05:05] Speaker B: But if you decide and you're not leaving because you have broken no laws, you have given a reasonable explanation why you're there and what is happening, and you decide, well, I appreciate the advice, but I have broken no laws and I'm just continuing my walk down the street. I'm on the Road where I have no, I don't have a pick foot in my hand. I have a, a bowl cutter.
[01:05:25] Speaker A: Yeah.
[01:05:25] Speaker B: No house breaking, no housebreaking apparatus. I don't have any illegal properties on me meaning an illegal firearm, a knife, armophone, my id, some money in my pocket, my car parked anymore and I just walking through watching. But you need to leave because how you mean I need to. You see that's what trying to get. Because police could get up in the feelings in a furry. Let's get up in the feelings. And when they're getting their feelings now, they charge you on the on emotions, how they feel like the man who was peeing on the lamp post relieving himself against the post. All right, so I'm just saying. I'm just playing devil's advocate because these are real situations that I'm not leaving. I have broken no laws. You are harassing me. Officer. You asked my question. I, I legal. I answered you. I've broken no laws. There is no reason I'm not loitering. I ain't standing up in front nobody house. You see, you may have observed me from the top of the street pass through just walking, going. And I tell you what I was doing but leave.
[01:06:21] Speaker A: Now let's, let's relate that. Let me relay that briefly to. You have the right to under Section 4A of the Constitution to life, liberty, security, security of personal enjoyment of property right. You as a homeowner have the right to. To life and liberty and your enjoyment of your property which you've invested in. But if it is your freedom of movement, you have the right under section 4G to freedom of movement. So you decide to walk through my community. Your right to freedom of movement should not in any way infringe my right to the enjoyment of my property.
But for me it has to be a balance.
[01:07:02] Speaker B: You and your mansion, you know, you in your house and your yard protected. I in the road walking. So pal me and touch you. I ain't even threaten you nothing. Gesturing. You have all your cameras. You could watch me. So while you and then it's not to say I am passing there every single day. This is a one off situation. You see me and you never see me after that.
[01:07:19] Speaker A: But the law is a balancing act.
[01:07:21] Speaker B: Nobody, your property is not the road.
[01:07:24] Speaker A: No, nobody has a right in itself that you could freely move from one place to the next. And that right allows you to walk anywhere you want. They must balance your right to freedom of movement against somebody else's right to enjoyment of property. Let me Use a popular example. You remember when Basiri Pandey referred to a certain media personality as a pseudo racist?
[01:07:53] Speaker B: Yes.
[01:07:54] Speaker A: And right. And he said a pseudo racist is not a real racist. It's a man who uses his own people for economic gain.
Right. That was Pandey's explanation that the man may not. A pseudo racist is not a real racist. It's a man who uses his own people. Right.
For the enhancement of his own economic situation. In other words, to make money.
[01:08:21] Speaker B: To make money on them.
[01:08:22] Speaker A: Right. And that particular media magnate took offense by that.
Panda is saying that how he said back then that what he was. What he meant when he said, what he said was not in. Was. Was not in itself intended to defame that man's character. But the man's argument when he brought a suit against, against Basili Pandey was that I have commercial words and I am seen as a respectable businessman. When you say that I make my money on the backs of people of my race, what you're really trying to say is that I'm not a legitimate businessman. I am opportunist, an economic opportunist who just seek to make money on anybody's back. Money is my priority.
And in other words, you dishonor the core function of him being a media magnate or a journalist. So the court, and this is where we are, the court in balancing Pandey's right to freedom of expression must consider the media magnate's right to equality of treatment before the law and his right to life and liberty and enjoyment of property. So Pan is expressed oppressions was an infringement of his right to life and liberty.
[01:09:44] Speaker B: Okay.
[01:09:45] Speaker A: So that balancing takes place. So to marry it into what you're saying that you're free to walk in the people community, your freedom of movement must not in any way cause uncomfortableness and cause persons to feel that they can't enjoy their property in the way that they have the right to privacy.
[01:10:03] Speaker B: All right, Fareed, I thank you very much for the time spent this morning. I am telling you again, as I told you in the past, we coming back, still lobbying for that law show with you and I, we definitely going to have more to talk about and I, I truly like the way we are able to go into depth, in depth with some of the conversations and truly clear up some of the misconceptions out there. And I know I have a ton load of messages but we can't get to all if I tell you I turn load Fareed, a ton load of messages coming in. So I thank you very much. I hope that you enjoy the rest of your day and we will be in touch very soon. All right. Have yourself a good one.
[01:10:36] Speaker A: Okay. I'm happy to be of assistance. Thank you. Enjoy it.
[01:10:39] Speaker B: Same to you.
[01:10:40] Speaker A: The best insight, feedback, accountability. The all new Talk Radio Freedom 106.5.
