Barry Dataram, wanted by the US in relation to a drug charge, was remanded to prison yesterday after appearing in two courts and having a provisional warrant issued for him by Magistrate Hazel Octive-Hamilton.
The warrant is a prerequisite for an extradition hearing.
Later in the day, Justice Roxanne George adjourned the separate habeas corpus proceedings so that Attorney General Doodnauth Singh could file an affidavit in response to the defence’s arguments.
Dataram was arrested by the police on Saturday for allegedly breaching a court order. His lawyers then filed habeas corpus proceedings.
Crime Chief Seelall Persaud took to the witness stand yesterday in the Magistrate’s Court in relation to the request for the extradition of Dataram by the United States. Magistrate Octive-Hamilton then proceeded to issue the provisional warrant, something which had happened before and had been challenged by lawyers.
Appearing before the High Court in the habeas corpus proceedings Dataram’s attorney Vic Puran contended there was no lawful basis for detaining Dataram prior to the warrant and as such the provisional warrant issued in the Magistrate’s court was issued unlawfully. Puran said that the warrant was issued based on the Crime Chief saying “some things in the witness box.” He said that he was using the word “things” advisedly and with guidance since what Persaud said could not amount to any evidence that supports the granting of a provisional warrant for his client.
Puran said that the court should not rely on the warrant issued by Magistrate Octive-Hamilton because they are dealing with the liberty of a citizen and to rely on the warrant will be saying that it was properly issued or valid, which it was not.
Justice George then asked that the defence lay over submissions to show that they can bring this new aspect into the Habeas Corpus proceedings which Puran said will be done by the next hearing. He also requested that the state reply to the arguments he made as regard his client’s “unlawful” custody. The AG then sought three days leave to file an affidavit in response to Puran’s arguments. Justice George then adjourned the matter to next Monday for further arguments. Puran then further requested that the response be filed before the date of the next hearing so that the defence would be afforded time to make any response if necessary.
- Barry Dataram
The state’s case was represented by the AG himself yesterday who told Justice George at the beginning of the hearing that he was in court because of a notice he received signed by Dataram’s other attorney Glen Hanoman. He said that the mechanism which was used to inform him of the hearing is “totally unacceptable.”
Puran then proceeded to explain that the notice was sent with the intention of not wasting the court’s time. He had approached the court staff on Monday afternoon after the Habeas Corpus proceeding was filed asking for a notice to be sent to the Commissioner of Police but was told it was too late to send one since there was a blackout and the computer was needed to generate the notice. So in order to inform the AG that the matter would have been heard Puran said that the notice was sent signed by his colleague. He apologized for the use of the word “heard” in the notice, which Justice George said should have been “came up before” since the matter was not heard on Monday, but rather a date was set for the hearing.
Meanwhile Dataram’s case in the Magistrate’s court will be heard again on November 3rd. In the interim the details concerning the provisional warrant will be taken to the Home Affairs Minister who will have to decide whether or not an extradition hearing will proceed in the Magistrate’s court.
Dataram, 29, of Ruimzight Gardens, West Coast Demerara, was arrested on Saturday night because it is said that he breached a court order that was granted last year. Dataram was arrested last year but released after a successful habeas corpus application by Puran and he was ordered to report to the Commis-sioner of Police every Monday and Friday. He failed to report at the start of the year and police issued the warrant. Puran has since said that that as far as he knew his client was not a wanted man as he had not breached any court order.
