Ashmeed Mohammed (Appellant) v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago (Respondent) (Trinidad and Tobago)

Case summary

Case ID

JCPC/2025/0074

Jurisdiction

Trinidad and Tobago

Parties

Appellant(s)

Ashmeed Mohammed

Respondent(s)

The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago

Issue

1) Was the President’s Proclamation No 8 of 2011 of a state of public emergency contrary to the Constitution and therefore unlawful? 2) Were the Regulations issued under this Proclamation justified by reference to the state of public emergency? 3) If so, were the arrests and detentions of the appellants under these Regulations nonetheless unlawful?

Facts

On 21 August 2011, the President, by Proclamation No 8 of 2011 (“the Proclamation”), declared a state of public emergency in Trinidad and Tobago. Acting under section 7(1) of the Constitution, which gives the President power to make regulations during such a period of public emergency, the President issued the Emergency Powers Regulations 2011 (“the Regulations”). The Regulations gave enhanced powers of arrest and detention to police officers. The three appellants in these appeals, Sergeant Elie, Mr Pitilal and Mr Mohammed, were among 17 people detained by order of the Minister of National Security (“the Minister”). The arrests were accompanied by significant media coverage. Sergeant Elie was initially arrested and detained on 23 November 2011, and Mr Pitilal and Mr Mohammed on 24 November 2011. After their arrest, their detention was then authorised by the Deputy Commissioner of Police for the maximum authorised period of seven days under the Regulations. During this period, they were all interviewed by the police. Sergeant Elie and Mr Pitilal were told that they were not permitted to consult a legal representative nor have one present during these interviews. Following their interviews, the Minister authorised signed detention orders for all three appellants. These were issued on the basis of preventing them from acting in a manner prejudicial to public safety, public order or the defence of Trinidad and Tobago. They were then detained under these orders until 5 December 2011, the final day of the state of public emergency. They were all released without charge. Each of the appellants brought constitutional motions alleging that they had been wrongfully arrested and detained, on 20 March 2015, 22 July 2015 and 29 July 2015 respectively. They challenged the validity of the Proclamation and the Regulations. On the Proclamation, it was argued that no valid state of emergency had been identified within the meaning of the Constitution. On the Regulations, it was argued that even if the Proclamation was valid, the powers of arrest and detention within the Regulations were not justified by this state of emergency. The appellants also claimed that, even if the Proclamation and Regulations were lawful, aspects of their arrest and detention had not been. In particular, they alleged that the arresting officer did not have the required suspicion to make the arrests and that they had been denied access to a lawyer. The appellants’ claims were heard together in the High Court. The judge dismissed the general challenges, finding that the Proclamation and the Regulations complied with the Constitution and were therefore lawful. However, in respect of Sergeant Elie, the judge found that the officer arresting him did not have the requisite suspicion under regulation 16(1). This meant that his arrest and initial detention were unlawful. His detention only became lawful when the Minister issued the detention order on 30 November 2011 (seven days after his initial arrest). The judge awarded him $100,000 compensation for unlawful arrest and detention. In addition, the judge found that Sergeant Elie and Mr Pitilal had been denied access to a lawyer in contravention with the constitution. They were each awarded $50,000 compensation on this basis. Each appellant appealed against the decisions of the judge to the Court of Appeal. The respondent cross appealed as regards the findings and awards made regarding Sergeant Elie and Mr Pitilal. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals concerning the state of emergency and the Regulations, finding that they were lawful. The Court of Appeal allowed Mr Pitilal’s appeal in part, finding that the officer who arrested him did not have the requisite suspicion under regulation 16(1) and awarding him damages of $100,000 as equivalent to Sergeant Elie’s compensation on this point. The Court of Appeal allowed the respondent’s cross-appeal regarding Sergeant Elie and Mr Pitilal’s denial of access to a lawyer. The Court of Appeal considered that they had not been adversely affected by this absence as they were not charged with any evidence. The three appellants now appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on the validity of the Proclamation and the Regulations and on the denial of access to a lawyer.

Date of issue

1 August 2025

Case origin

Appeal As of Right

Linked cases

Back to top