SOE Regulations

[00:00:00] Speaker A: You're tuned into the all new freedom 106.5. 106.5. [00:00:07] Speaker B: We say good morning to my co host and colleague on a Friday. We missed you last Friday. But we understand matters of importance. [00:00:15] Speaker C: Court. [00:00:16] Speaker D: Yes. [00:00:17] Speaker B: We want people to be free. Good morning to you, madam. Andisa West. [00:00:22] Speaker D: Good morning. [00:00:23] Speaker B: How was your week? Your week was good. [00:00:24] Speaker D: It was Freddie. [00:00:26] Speaker B: Michael. No. Yeah. You could go to it, right? I'm gonna make sure you. Yeah, right. [00:00:30] Speaker D: You hear me better. [00:00:31] Speaker B: Y you take a note. [00:00:33] Speaker D: Well, yeah, I also prepared for court. [00:00:36] Speaker B: Now you do your thing. I understand that as well. You do your thing. I mean, another edition of justice is here with us. Another vote came in that says no. Another texter says good morning. Oh, yes, good morning, Mr. Henry Hamlet. Boy, why this name song in familiar so? Boy, it's as though I know this dude. Boy, it's Mr. Henry Hamlet. Looks familiar. All right. Good morning to you, Mr. Hamlet. Thank you very much for making Freedom 106.5 FM your choice of morning radio. Alright, so I have something I want to play for you guys. It's coming off the heels of the morning poll question this morning. And Lisa, take a listen to this. [00:01:09] Speaker E: Mr. Speaker, as I close, I wish to end as I started, as uncomfortable as that might be for as a truth for my friends on the other side and as uncomfortable as it may be for some of our scans of industry on the outside, the definition of gang applies to them in the same way that all of our laws, all of our laws apply to them. Now, not every law in every society is going to be universally liked. That is something that president Kennedy said. But you know what? They must be universally obeyed. An infraction of the law by the powerful and 1% is no different from an infraction of the law by the poor little black youths in Mova and Laventille. We are not here speaking to action taken by our allies in the north. We have no control over that. What we do have control over is. Is what our law enforcement tells us about some of the activities of these persons. The time when they received the keys to the city and license to mash up the police. That time is over. Whatever my personal consequences, whatever the consequences are for the prime minister, I think it may be too much for them to chew all of us. We are prepared for that. The government will not be deterred. In its drive against gang related crime and gang related activity. I ask, Mr. Speaker, given the gains that we have achieved with the state of emergency, I seek the extension of the State of Emergency. Mr. Speaker, I beg to move. [00:03:15] Speaker B: Honourable members, I shall now propose the question. Now, I know, I know as a woman that's back. The dpp. Yeah. High praises for the dpp as a. As a legal luminary in this country, in this society, what do you feel about the Attorney General? [00:03:33] Speaker D: I mean, I also. [00:03:34] Speaker F: Back there, [00:03:38] Speaker D: John. Jeremy, I mean. [00:03:40] Speaker F: I mean, what he said sounds good [00:03:42] Speaker D: in principle, that the laws of our country should apply to everyone without discrimination. But I mean, the undertones of the. Of what was said and I mean, even before that, earlier on in his speech, when I listened, he also mentioned that Tetrana waits. [00:04:02] Speaker B: Tetron awaits. Six, seven and eight. [00:04:05] Speaker D: And the thing is, I actually recently had the. What I call that the opportunity boy. I had. [00:04:13] Speaker B: I had the distinct. They distinguish pleasure or they distinguish pleasure. [00:04:16] Speaker D: I had to visit client in Tetron. [00:04:20] Speaker B: How was it? [00:04:24] Speaker D: It's a very interesting situation because attorneys are blindfolded to meet them, so. Water. [00:04:30] Speaker B: He was blindfolded. [00:04:32] Speaker D: So what occurs is that, well, you have to request it beforehand. I mean, it's a touch run, and they are placed there for a reason. So obviously there would be a process, not knocking that process. So you have to request beforehand when you get there, you wait until prison officers arrive. And then the prison officers, and I believe, I guess it would be army officials, because they are all masked. They then drive you to a point and the driver couldn't go further than they. So you come out the vehicle, they blindfold you, and then you enter their vehicle blindfolded and they carry you to wherever they have the individuals in touch run. And you are only. The blindfold is only removed when you're in the room with your clan. Because I guess the whole point of it is that they don't want anyone to have any idea of where exactly the men are being held at Tetron. So to. To. To threaten Tetron. Tetron is a very interesting place. And even when I was speaking to the person, he mentioned to me that he now learned how to plait his own hair because he have nothing else to do there because, you know, they have. They can't get any visits. They don't know what's going on because they don't have access to the news or anything like that. So they're really just there waiting until whenever that until is. So to threaten Tetron, in my opinion, I have my views. [00:06:04] Speaker B: It's like solitary confinement. [00:06:06] Speaker D: And I mean, an attorney did challenge it before. [00:06:10] Speaker F: I believe it was C.J. [00:06:11] Speaker D: williams. He challenged the whole concept that attorneys have to be Blindfolded to go meet their clients at Tetra. And it was heard before Justice James, and he indicated that it isn't unconstitutional because there are alternatives, meaning that attorneys would be able to set up virtual visits with the men there. But in my. In my case, I had no point, no choice but to go to Chetron because I needed him to sign a document. You can't sign a document through virtual. So it's a very interesting situation, I would say. I mean, imagine being blindfolded to go and meet a client, and then even when you're there, the officers are still around and all these different things. So it's not like if you could have like a full, frank conversation with your clients, I guess, that they don't want. I. I don't know the justification. But Tetran, in my opinion, is a very. It's not a nice place. Yeah. [00:07:09] Speaker B: So he learned to plait his own hair. He sits there all day. There's no television. Not even my papers. [00:07:14] Speaker D: No. [00:07:14] Speaker B: You can get a book to write something, [00:07:17] Speaker D: because even the document that I carried to read, he sat and he read it and he read it, and he was like, you know, Laura, never read something. It was one of the most interesting things that I've done in a while. [00:07:31] Speaker F: And I mean, I deal. I do criminal law, so I deal [00:07:34] Speaker D: with criminal matters every day. But that was one of the most interesting things. [00:07:39] Speaker B: He said he hasn't read something in a while. [00:07:42] Speaker D: And I'm. [00:07:44] Speaker F: I'm not bashing the situation. [00:07:47] Speaker D: I. I guess that the government have. Have reasons or their justification for placing the persons there. I have always said that I am a supporter of our criminal justice system and the actors within the criminal justice system and everybody have their part to play. Do you see me how the prosecution have their part to play, the defense have their part to play. But I generally think that Tetron is a bit interesting. And some. [00:08:17] Speaker F: I mean, some of the. [00:08:19] Speaker D: Some of the inmates there, you know, they don't necessarily. [00:08:23] Speaker F: You. You just took me from the general [00:08:26] Speaker D: population and placed me in a area that nobody know where exactly I am exactly on the premises. Mass men are feeding me daily. Would you eat from Maskman or in a place that you just. [00:08:42] Speaker B: When I go dead. [00:08:43] Speaker D: Exactly. So I'm certain. [00:08:44] Speaker F: I'm. [00:08:44] Speaker D: I'm not sure, but I'm certain that there are prisoners there who probably isn't [00:08:48] Speaker F: eaten because they would refuse because they're [00:08:50] Speaker D: thinking, you know, you're trying to. Trying to. Smart shot. [00:08:54] Speaker F: So the. And. [00:08:55] Speaker D: And I've heard that there are persons [00:08:57] Speaker F: there who are getting small because the anteater. [00:08:59] Speaker D: Because they don't trust the food that is being provided to them that by [00:09:02] Speaker F: masked men every day because all the [00:09:04] Speaker D: officers who deal with them every day are masked. [00:09:06] Speaker B: So the ones who was surrounding you, they were masked? [00:09:09] Speaker D: Yeah, I didn't see the officer's face. [00:09:11] Speaker B: But what is. Were they army personnel or police? [00:09:14] Speaker D: I, I presume it's army personnel because it's a touch run. So it's a mixture of army. [00:09:20] Speaker B: The clothing. The clothing. [00:09:21] Speaker D: You may not know that they were in black. [00:09:26] Speaker B: Black camo. Just black. [00:09:27] Speaker F: They were in black. [00:09:28] Speaker B: They were in black. [00:09:29] Speaker F: So I'm not talking about. I presume they are army officials. [00:09:33] Speaker B: That's a reprisum. We're not sure. [00:09:35] Speaker F: Yeah. [00:09:35] Speaker B: But it's very interesting and I thank you so much, Andisa, for sharing that experience. I mean. [00:09:39] Speaker F: Yeah. And again, I, I always choose what I say extremely carefully because I don't [00:09:46] Speaker D: want it to appear as though that I'm saying, you know, but my opinion [00:09:51] Speaker F: is that that's a very interesting place to put dimensions. And those persons aren't convicted of any crimes as yet. They are on remand. Well, well, I mean, one, I, I believe one or two are because I [00:10:05] Speaker D: know one or two persons who recently did their child and they were convicted, [00:10:08] Speaker F: but more likely they are appealing and [00:10:10] Speaker D: they are there, but they are also [00:10:12] Speaker F: a mixture of persons who are on remand. [00:10:14] Speaker B: Can we see. You know what? I need to take a. A break. [00:10:18] Speaker A: You're tuned into the all new freedom 106.5. 106.5. [00:10:25] Speaker B: Good morning. Good morning again, and welcome Back to Freedom 106.5 FM. You're listening to justice with Andissa west and Davey Murray. [00:10:32] Speaker F: Yes, good morning. [00:10:33] Speaker D: And this morning we have a very [00:10:35] Speaker F: special birthday going on to Shamoni. [00:10:38] Speaker B: Shamoni. Sharmini is celebrating 67. Sharmini is 67 years. So, Sharmini, Andisa and I would like to send some greetings for you. [00:10:48] Speaker D: Yes, happy birthday. [00:10:49] Speaker F: I mean, another year in the land of the living is always amazing. And I hope that this next year, [00:10:56] Speaker D: 67 is a whole lot of wisdom, a whole lot of love, a whole lot of life that you have lived. And I hope that you completely enjoy this next year, this coming year, coming [00:11:05] Speaker B: down from the team, from justice. And I mean, 67 is a long time. And as Andisa mentioned, that is wisdom. [00:11:11] Speaker D: It's a good time. [00:11:11] Speaker B: It's a great time. [00:11:12] Speaker F: Yes. [00:11:13] Speaker B: And, you know, I met Sharmini by the fish vendors out there, the green tent in Karani. If all you're going to buy fish, go buy the green tent. You will get a nice deal. I just always get. I just see them game. Sharmini got a nice deal yesterday, so go and buy some fish now, man. They don't know crabbies, they don't buy that. You get shark, you get everything. Check out them fellas by the green tent and Shamoni, enjoy the rest of your day and the entire balance of the next year that you're coming into. All right, as we continue with our conversations this morning, just about 25 minutes on the upswing to the hour of 8 o'. Clock. You're into justice this morning. Let's take a phone call quickly and respectfully. Good morning present. [00:11:48] Speaker C: Good morning once more, Davy, our pleasant. Good morning, Andy. Sir, there are a couple of things I want to mention here and, and this. I'll tell you something. A few months ago I was asked by a young attorney to accompany her to touch one and I tell myself, I say that for me, I don't want to get involved in that now that could be dangerous and I don't think she went at all. I don't know if it's the same matter that you are involved in but anyway, Davy, earlier this week some issue you had disagreed with and I told, and I told you that when the Goodly council is here, we will discuss it. I don't remember what matter was. Yes, if you remember, we will discuss it. [00:12:28] Speaker B: Yeah, you did say that and when he counseled, which we'll talk but I [00:12:32] Speaker C: thought it would matter. But anyway, Davy, if you remember, we could discuss it eventually. Devi, earlier this week one of your poll questions was with regard to if it is that prisoners should be allowed to practice their religion in the prison service. [00:12:47] Speaker B: All rights. They should be allowed all rights, not just the practice. [00:12:50] Speaker C: Well, I wouldn't tell you why because I beg to disagree. If you are in prison, of course you can't do things as you want to. Prison as a system also, right? And they have rules and they have regulations there. I am saying that you should be able to practice your religion. However, if it is that your religion in requires that you wear a certain garb and you perform certain rights in a certain way, I am saying that should not be allowed because take for instance as a Hindu, if you want to perform a puja, you are getting murtis and you have to get things and you have to. That should not be allowed in the person the prison. You can sit down and pray to your God as you want to. But the thing Is that not in the manner that somebody on your outside should? So I would want to get Anissa's view on that, and that's my take on it. We have to understand that prison is prison and we have to understand that there are rules and regulations in the prison. Davy, I'll tell you something. As I said, let me just close on this. Long ago and I talk about many years ago, a prisoner, the first thing they do for me, that is they shave, they cut their hair low, a certain amount, it tells you a certain amount of decency and so on. Police officers, all defense force and so on, everybody had to cut their hair low, no pair and so on. Today I'm seeing things differently and I believe that uniformity, it worked in the past and that should not have changed. It has changed now. But the thing is that I think that we abuse, you know, democratic rights. I thank you. Enjoy. So I wait for your response on this, sir. [00:14:25] Speaker B: All rights to practice. [00:14:26] Speaker D: Well, the matter involving the prisoners who are challenging the ability to. They weren't allowed to celebrate Eid Al Adhar, last say, I am actually one of the councils on the matter, so I don't necessarily want to say too much, but I think it's a situation. I mean, it is coming up for hearing before Justice Rampassad and hopefully when it is completed, I'd be able to talk more in depth on the particular matter. But I would note that it is a situation where they have been allowed to celebrate Eid Al Adhar in the past. And I mean, they had. They already made arrangements. The imam was outside waiting and only at that point he was told that he wouldn't be able to go in. So even. [00:15:07] Speaker B: But, but let me chime in there. We got to remember, folks, that we in a. We are in a very peculiar situation in Trinidad and Tobago. And so this is an soe. This is not. [00:15:18] Speaker D: No, but this was last year. [00:15:20] Speaker B: This is a SOE. [00:15:21] Speaker D: This, this occurred in last year, 2025. [00:15:24] Speaker B: Was it during an SOE? [00:15:25] Speaker D: It. I don't believe it was during that. [00:15:28] Speaker F: And even if it was, what, what, what is the justification? [00:15:31] Speaker B: The justification is we are under. If, if it was during a state of emergency, right. People's constitutional rights across the board have been suspended or infringed upon a bit. Your constitutional rights would be infringed upon a little bit. So if you was accustomed to getting something done, remember, the police don't need a warrant if they have reasonable suspicion or information to get into your house. [00:15:59] Speaker D: But that is stated very specifically in the emergency Powers regulations. In the emergency Powers Regulation, it doesn't state that you're not allowed to practice your religion in Trinidad and Tobago during an sue. It doesn't say that. [00:16:08] Speaker B: No, it doesn't. But remember when you, when, when you, when you are sitting in the. We leaving just now, I don't worry, we're getting a message. When we are in the, in the prison, isn't our rights already suspended? Isn't our freedom of movement curtailed a bit? [00:16:22] Speaker D: Well, I mean your freedom of movement, that's one right. But that's not all your rights. [00:16:25] Speaker B: Right, but ah, so we do have limited rights. Are you allowed if you're in the prison in the remand section to get. You could jump in a car, you could come out of prison, jump in a car, go to the mosque, go to the Hindu temple, go to the Kingdom hall, go to a church, you go to the wherever place of worship and come back, you're allowed to. [00:16:42] Speaker D: The thing about it is, I mean we had several discussions in the past about bail and persons being able to allow bail or not. And persons have their views on whether somebody should be granted bail or not. But the first thing, when I'm making a bail application, I note that the person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The whole point of this person being on remand is until they're still innocent, until they are proven guilty, they are still going through the court system. And at that point, if the court then, if the court then denies them, bill, they are placed in custody. So that's based on that. That's why they can't necessarily move wherever they want to. But that doesn't mean that every single right that they have under the constitution, including their freedom of expression, if you don't to practice the religion, is also suspended, these persons are on remand in the court of Spain prison. They are not convicted prisoners. [00:17:29] Speaker B: Are you familiar at what it entails? What does it entail? You familiar with it? [00:17:34] Speaker D: Yes, because that's the salvation where they generally, well, they have prayers, so they have a morning prayer and they are. They also slaughter an animal, so be careful. And they didn't ask to slaughter an animal. What they asked to do is to be taken out of their cell to pray, which they have been allowed to do in the past. And I would even argue, and I, I don't want to go too in depth in this, you just have to [00:17:57] Speaker F: go before justice answer. [00:17:58] Speaker D: But I would say we also have something called a legitimate expectation in law. And if in the past, all the other years and Even if you're saying it was unnecessary at the point in time prison officials made arrangements with the imam to come. So if, even if they were saying that he wouldn't be able to do it. And why did you make the arrangement for the imam to come into the prison to allow them to pray? They aren't asking to slaughter any animals. They're just asking to go out and pray at a particular time. [00:18:26] Speaker B: Well, here it is. [00:18:27] Speaker D: Which they weren't allowed to do. [00:18:29] Speaker B: It is you. [00:18:30] Speaker D: And even if, however you guys want to spin it, turn it, topple it over, these persons are not convicted of any particular offense. They are on remand. They are presumed innocent until they are proven guilty. Some of them may be. May be shown innocent in the future. We don't know. It has to go through before the court. But you see, the thing is, what happens is that you'll see someone charged for nanofence and they are possibly in custody because they were denied bail. And you automatically presume that these persons are guilty and they shouldn't be treated as citizens and all their rights should be suspended, which I don't believe makes any sense whatsoever, especially in a situation where these persons were allowed to do their prayer. They aren't asking to slaughter any animal in the prison in the past. And I would, I mean, let's see what Justice Rampersad has to say. [00:19:28] Speaker B: I don't want to pronounce and I don't want. [00:19:30] Speaker D: So let's not like talking about my. Let's not prejudice the case before the courts. [00:19:34] Speaker B: It's currently before the courts. But in the court of public opinion, [00:19:37] Speaker D: the public always have opinions. [00:19:40] Speaker B: And I am part of that court in the public. [00:19:42] Speaker D: And we love the fact that public. [00:19:44] Speaker B: I say earlier, pray all your prayers, pal. I don't. All your. Pray all your prayer. I. Justice Ramper, sadly, people pray to pray for. Please. I don't have a problem with that. [00:19:53] Speaker D: I mean, we'd see. We'd see. I mean, the whole point of these things is to determine. Determine what is allowed and what is not allowed. Because obviously whatever is the decision for these men, I mean, 27 of them challenging it right now, but it would also set the precedent for what would be allowed in the future for not just Muslims, but also all other persons or for other religions. So, I mean, the whole point of it, even if he doesn't agree, it will just clarify an area that needed to be clarified and we move forward from there. [00:20:21] Speaker B: My thing about it is when the imam shows up and they go into the special part of the prison to pray. If they pray in the cell, God not going here. I don't know. I'm just thinking out loud. I don't know. I don't know. Is it. Is it that the imam had to be there because you had to understand something? I presumed in a sense until proven guilty is fine. I have no problem with that. But I understand that there are things that will be suspended. You are not being. What if you're accustomed eating late in the night or in the evening, you're not eating at. [00:20:53] Speaker D: You don't have a right to eat at a particular time. That isn't a right in the constitution. But you have a right to practice your religion. That's. [00:20:59] Speaker F: That's something I'm just certain. [00:21:00] Speaker D: I could point you in the Constitution [00:21:02] Speaker B: where it says I certainly probably can't when you. When you lock up, but you can try. [00:21:05] Speaker D: What do you mean you can't when you lock up? What does being locked up have to [00:21:08] Speaker B: in my opinion again in the public quarter? Not any. So because I just thinking because if I get arrested, if I get arrested, God forbid, I ain't gonna do nothing for arrest. [00:21:17] Speaker D: And only when you are arrested and you're probably innoc and you're in going through system, then you'd realize why you still need to recognize the rights of these individuals. And like I. I mean sometimes people complain about the. The conditions of the prisons and then the response by members of the public which they are entitled to is saying that well, you're not in Hyatt. How do you expect the prison to be? And it's only when you or you have a relative in prison and they have to be in a cell with 20 other persons and they're peeing and using the bathroom in a bucket that they can't throw it until the next day. Then you understand why someone who is presumed innocent shouldn't be in those type of situations. Then you'd understand why. And then you'd understand why even though you're in custody because you were denied bail, that doesn't mean that all your rights are suspended. It does not mean that. [00:22:02] Speaker B: Quickly Quickly. [00:22:03] Speaker C: Morning [00:22:05] Speaker G: and wanted to. To guess. Well, she's not. I guess again. [00:22:09] Speaker B: She is the co host. Yes. [00:22:11] Speaker G: Yeah, I wouldn't. I recently heard a tape recording of exchange between a police prosecutor and a judge. I'd like to hear but we'll. Setting that aside for a moment. A child lost his life recently in very tragic circumstances and more than one individual was held. One person was charged. I'm calling no names. One person was charged and the remaining other persons were allowed to leave. Additionally, a spouse shot their spouse in an incident and all 20 the spouse lost their life. That person and all was allowed to go home in the house. Now, me, as a citizen, I'm not sure that justice was done. Does the police have the authority. Where does the authority of the police end and the authority of the court begin? Because I feel that this determination not supposed to be made by a court, but instead it was made by the police. I'd like to hear your comments, Listen of the air. Thank you. [00:23:10] Speaker B: No, I think I, I sit with Andisa long enough to understand your question and maybe I could respond in a minute and Andissa can back me if I'm wrong or back me if I'm correct. If I'm wrong. You mentioned the one person who faced the who being charged and the other who got to go back home because she, you know, allegedly unalived her husband during a domestic dispute. Allegedly. The thing about it is this. The police didn't make that decision. The facts, circumstances following the investigation would determine whether they send a file to the DPP or not. And I don't think she just went to the police station and went back home. She was in custody for a little while, a couple days. She was held for a few days. So they would have consulted with the legal luminaries and they would have realized, okay, based on the facts presented, there's no need to charge this lady. It's what we will determine a justifiable homicide. [00:24:11] Speaker C: All right. [00:24:11] Speaker B: Because the standing ground law is speaking to justification. If you take someone's life. [00:24:16] Speaker F: Well, self defense. [00:24:17] Speaker D: Yes. [00:24:18] Speaker B: In self defense. Right. So if you, if you take someone's life in self defense because the person was coming with a knife, and as they're coming down with a knife, you shoot on the girl because had you missed that bullet, missed them, you would have been injured or fatally injured. And that is still a homicide. But the courts can determine it as a justifiable homicide. Just like if police in a shootout and the bandits shooting the police and the police shoot back and the bandit dead. Justifiable homicide. So these. We don't know the facts, but that was DVD court of public opinion. As one of the co hosts on justice, I am now going to turn it over to the legal mind. [00:24:56] Speaker F: Yeah. So it's essentially that. [00:24:58] Speaker D: So what? [00:24:58] Speaker F: As I explained before, what usually occurs is that the police would conduct the investigation. They will go, they will retrieve whatever CCTV footage that they can get, take statements from the persons who may have witnessed the events and the persons involved in the incident. At the end of the investigation they [00:25:15] Speaker D: will put together the file. [00:25:16] Speaker F: I think they sometimes recommend what they think should happen. I would be up to the date dpp. The DPP under the constitution is who have the power to charge, initiate criminal proceedings or discontinue criminal proceedings. So that is usually up to the DPP after the police officers have conducted the investigation and is only when it become goes before the court, if they are in fact charged, that the court will then be able to do certain things. So at that point, at that initial, initial time after the incident, it would be up to the police officers firstly to conduct the investigation and then for the DPP to determine if they are going to charge the individual. And obviously it would depend on the facts of the case, each matter. You can't just, it can't just be a situation where somebody is dead that this is going to be the outcome. They have to conduct the investigation to determine the exact situation or what exactly consistent occurred. If this person was acting in self defense, if this person have any other lawful defense that they could rely on and they'd move from there. [00:26:21] Speaker B: So in, in essence what we are saying to that caller is that don't play the card like you know, them have money so but because them have money, you know, that mean them get off. No, no, no. I'm quite certain persons of that ilk in society, their house have cameras. [00:26:35] Speaker F: Yeah. [00:26:36] Speaker B: So they would have retrieved those footage, maybe there was and those cameras have audio these days, one of the days when. So they might be hearing the cost in the quarrel and we don't know. [00:26:44] Speaker F: So it would definitely depend on what they recovered as their evidence and whether [00:26:52] Speaker B: or not they charge or choose not to. But they don't make a decision to charge and not to charge haphazardly and [00:26:57] Speaker F: just so, and I mean I sat into a few interviews where they were doing an interview with suspects for murders and when they have the CCTV footage they'll show you it. They usually show you during the interview and they're like, is this you? So they show you exactly all the evidence that they have. [00:27:15] Speaker B: That's called disclosure. [00:27:17] Speaker F: Yeah. And then, well, obviously we had to [00:27:18] Speaker D: get disclosure afterwards as well. [00:27:20] Speaker F: But at that initial point they'll still show it and they'll note in the interview notes that the footage was shown to the individual and so on. And as I said, even in the situation where this young lady, she stabbed someone, I believe on George street and they show height and this and you could have seen in the Footage that he essentially lunged at her first and at the end of it. And she doesn't have any large amount of money. She's from east Port of Spain and at the end of it they didn't make the decision to charge her. So it really and truly just depends. Not only because the person has money or not, it really just depends on. On what evidence they have against the individual. [00:28:02] Speaker B: And me personally, I have seen nothing wrong with that. Good morning. Quickly, quickly. [00:28:09] Speaker H: Yeah, good morning. Good morning. [00:28:10] Speaker B: I do. I do apologize for rushing. [00:28:13] Speaker H: Intentionally missing the point. The point is not that there was evidence to let the lady go immediately. The point is that she had access to the DPP while other people will take 15 years to do just what hold on, she was able to do. [00:28:27] Speaker B: Hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on. Adoya, say something on people she what access to the DPP she had. What are you talking about? [00:28:37] Speaker H: By hiring a prominent lawyer who was able to fast shut the cases. Nothing to do with no evidence. [00:28:44] Speaker F: No. [00:28:44] Speaker D: Well, [00:28:47] Speaker B: no, that is not what happened. [00:28:48] Speaker F: No, even I think what you're trying to say is that some persons may have money, may have the financial resources to hire a more prominent attorney than the other. But to be quite honest, and this isn't an opinion that they could decide yes or no, but once someone is in a police station and they are conducting inquiries for murder where someone has died, if the person isn't allowed to retain counsel on their own, the officers homicide usually contacts legal aid and legal aid would send a duty counsel to the individual. So even they usually don't conduct any interviews until the person retains their own attorney or they get an attorney from legal aid. And as I explained very many times [00:29:34] Speaker D: before, just because it is a legal [00:29:36] Speaker F: aid attorney, that doesn't mean that they are any less. I mean, obviously some persons may have more experience, but it doesn't mean persons on the private bar, even persons on the private bar sits as duty counsel on the legal aids board. So once someone, Once someone is before while they are in the police station and they are conducting inquiries in relation to a murder, they would more than likely ask the person if they have. If they're retaining their own council, if they have their own council, council would make their way to the police station. But if they don't, they usually not usually they have to contact legal aid and legal. They will send a duty counsel for this person. So they generally have an attorney there helping them. And the attorney would sit into any interviews and they would do the bail application for them. [00:30:21] Speaker B: Right. [00:30:22] Speaker F: And at that point afterwards, they would possibly appoint a public defender to assist the person. So even if the person doesn't have the finances to retain their own attorney, they ensure that the person at least have some type of legal representation to their availability. [00:30:34] Speaker B: Well said. Quickly, good morning. [00:30:37] Speaker H: Good morning, David. [00:30:39] Speaker B: Quickly, quickly. [00:30:40] Speaker H: What County Central was speaking about is transferring an asset of a deceased person without probating our will or getting a letter of administration. We are. We are referring to the maxi taxi drivers. [00:30:55] Speaker C: Okay, okay. [00:30:57] Speaker B: Let me cut you there. Let me cut you there. I apologize. I do apologize, but we can't talk about that this, this morning. That is a matter for a future show. All right. With the transferring of funds, you brought on something there in the dregs of. Of our program this morning. I do apologize. I don't mean to cut you, but we really can't discuss that right now. All right. When I say quickly, it's pertaining to what we're discussing. Right. The Attorney general could have been more diplomatic and say whatever percentile you belong to, the law applies. He would have gotten his message across. I disagree with that. I have no problem with what the Attorney General say. To be honest with you, you had to be brutal, blunt and honest with your feelings. [00:31:32] Speaker F: I think that what he said in principle is quite fine, that the law should apply to everybody. But I feel like if the undertones [00:31:38] Speaker D: of it, where it appears to be [00:31:39] Speaker F: targeted to one particular group in society [00:31:42] Speaker D: is a bit interesting. [00:31:43] Speaker B: It is interesting. [00:31:46] Speaker I: I mean, I don't like the use of the word slaughter as it pertains to either the word sacrifice. [00:31:52] Speaker F: Yes. [00:31:52] Speaker D: Sorry. [00:31:53] Speaker F: My apologies. [00:31:54] Speaker I: To commemorate the sacrifice of Abraham, when God commanded him to sacrifice his son and he went into the wilderness to sacrifice his son, and at the last minute God stopped him and allowed him to sacrifice Aram instead. So Eolada is the commemoration of that sacrifice, that willingness to give up your will for the sake of the will of God? [00:32:16] Speaker B: You know, there's one thing I would say with that. It's not something. [00:32:21] Speaker F: No, I would take that correction. And regardless of how you feel about [00:32:24] Speaker D: it, that's what they believe. [00:32:26] Speaker F: And as. And we live in a democracy, persons are allowed to perform and believe in whatever they believe in. I take that correction. [00:32:34] Speaker B: It doesn't reach the law, but that concludes our edition of justice for Today. We thank all of you for chiming in with us this morning. So many messages and whatsapps on the board, but we can't take all. But we do see. Thank you for taking a thorough interest into what we discuss every Friday minus last Friday. Your parents sent a written note for your absence. [00:32:57] Speaker F: And mind you, today we're supposed to [00:32:58] Speaker D: talk about the emergency powers regulations, but we. So pressed for time. [00:33:01] Speaker B: We pressed for time. So here's what we're going to do. All right. I'll probably get andisa middle of the week on the phone to answer a couple questions or do something with us really quickly. Earlier morning next week as we talk about these emergency policies, you're tuned into [00:33:11] Speaker A: the all new freedom 106.5. 106.5.