After spending six years on remand without a trial, former murder-accused Cloyd Harris has filed a $100 million lawsuit against the state for what he says was the loss of his liberty.
Apart from his detention during that period—2012 to 2019—, Harris (the applicant) argues that not only was his detention unlawful, but that there was a delay in him being afforded a trial within a reasonable time.
Against this background he is seeking several declarations from the High Court and orders in hopes of being compensated for what he contends was the unconstitutional deprivation of his liberty.
Harris is being represented by attorney-at-law Dexter Todd, while the Attorney General is listed as the respondent.
In addition to the damages being sought, Harris is asking the court to specifically declare that his arrest and detention without trial was unreasonable and in contravention of Article 144 of the Constitution.
Subsection 1 of that Article states: “If any person is charged with a criminal offence, then, unless the charge is withdrawn, the case shall be afforded a fair hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial court established by law.”
Harris also wants a declaration that his arrest and detention for that period of time violated his constitutional right to personal liberty and contravened Article 139 of the Constitution.
It states, among other things, “No person shall be deprived of his personal liberty save as may be authorised by law…”
In addition, Harris has asked the court for exemplary damages and any other order it may deem just to grant as well as court costs.
Harris was arrested and detained on Christmas Day of 2012 by officers who were investigating him for the murder of Derrick Cox.
He said the lawmen had told him that he was a suspect in Cox’s murder, and as a result he was being detained.
Arrested in 2012, Harris then went through a preliminary inquiry (PI) which concluded in October of 2013, following which Magistrate Alex Moore found that a prima facie case had been made out against him and, therefore, committed him to stand trial for the capital offence in the High Court.
Three years later, the depositions and case files were still with the clerk of courts and had not been prepared for the High Court trial.
Further delays, however, arose when the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) instructed the magistrate to re-open the PI to admit additional evidence from the main witness and a finding that one of the exhibits in the matter had not been marked.
It would take another two years before the re-opening of the PI in December of 2018.
The main witness, however, who had not previously testified, appeared after the PI was re-opened and said that he did not see Harris at the scene of the crime.
In those circumstances, the magistrate discharged Harris on grounds of insufficient evidence last July.
Just three days ago, High Court Judge Sandil Kissoon threw out a murder charge laid against two persons after finding that there was insufficient evidence against them.
Sherland Joseph and Lowell Hope had already spent almost a decade behind bars awaiting trial for the alleged murder of Port Kaituma teen Kennedy Creame.
Conceding that there was indeed not enough evidence for the men to be placed on trial, the prosecutor had no objections to the motion-to-quash that was brought by defence attorney Maxwell McKay.
Justice Kissoon had lamented the time the case took winding its way through the criminal justice, calling it regrettable.
