Attorneys for the Leader of the Opposition, Azruddin Mohamed have moved to the High Court to secure bail for him in the case involving the unauthorized downloading and dissemination of CCTV recordings from the Government’s Safe Country initiative.

The case is filed in the name of Mohamed’s mother, Bonita Mohamed, and names the Director of Public Prosecutions, Magistrate Abigail Gibbs and the Attorney General as the respondents.

Mohamed’s Attorneys want the High Court to quash the decision of the Sparendaam Magistrates’ Court not to grant bail to the Opposition Leader.

The Attorneys – Roysdale Forde, Siand Dhurjon and Damien Da Silva – have also applied for reasonable bail to be granted.

The Court is being asked to issue “an order that Azruddin Mohamed be admitted to reasonable bail on such terms or conditions as may seem fit and reasonable in the circumstances of this case pending the hearing and determination of his trial.”

The Attorneys have also asked for the Fixed Date Application (FDA) be filed as a matter or urgency.

In the grounds for the applications, the Attorneys contend that Magistrate Abigail Gibbs erred in law and acted unreasonably in failing to consider Section 9 of the Cybercrime Act.

It was argued that the Opposition Leader is accused of being the recipient of the electronic data and not the person who obtained the data from the protected computer system.

“The learned Magistrate failed to consider adequately that the Applicant had a lawful excuse or justification in that the electronic data concerned the Applicant’s own movements and the conduct of police officers during an incident which had resulted in serious criminal charges against him,” the Attorneys submitted.

It was noted that the prosecution’s case against Mohamed appeared to be dependent substantially on the alleged admissions or statements made by his co-accused, Ryan Greene. Those statements, the attorneys argued, are ‘inadmissible”. They are claiming that the Prosecution has failed to identify sufficient independent admissible evidence against the political leader.

“The learned Magistrate failed to consider the cumulative effect of the evidential deficiencies that clearly and demonstrably undermined the likely strength of the prosecution’s case even at the preliminary bail hearing stage. In all the circumstances, the learned Magistrate acted irrationally and disproportionately by refusing bail without adequately examining whether the prosecution’s allegations, taken at their highest disclosed a case against Mohamed that could go beyond the prima facie stage to justify his continued incarceration,” the Attorneys argued.

Further, the Attorneys submitted that Magistrate Gibbs acted in breach of the fundamental rule of natural justice by determining Mohamed’s entitlement to bail notwithstanding her alleged longstanding relationship and engagement to Deputy Superintendent of Police Jamine Bacon.

Bacon, the Court was told, is an investigating officer, who was directly involved in the investigation and institution of related criminal proceedings against Mohamed arising from the October 12 incident.

It is alleged that Magistrate Gibbs failed to disclose her alleged personal relationship with the investigating officer, thereby depriving Mohamed of the opportunity to object to her adjudication of the matter or to seek her recusal.

“The circumstances give rise to a reasonable apprehension that the learned Magistrate might not bring an impartial and independent mind to the determination of bail, particularly where the prosecution’s case concerned the alleged unlawful disclosure of evidence tending to undermine criminal allegations investigated and advanced by her own fiancé,” the Attorneys submitted.

It was submitted that in the alternative, the Magistrate is affected by presumed bias and ought to be automatically disqualified from making a decision in this particular case.

“On account of said bias, the decision was reached in breach of the requirements of impartial adjudication and procedural fairness and is a nullity liable to be quashed,” the Attorneys argued.

A number of other grounds were stated in support of the application, including the position that the offence is a non-violent nature.

Related posts:

Chief Magistrate rejects Prosecution’s motion to revoke Mohamed’s bail in extradition case Opposition Leader and Police Constable remanded to prison over leak of surveillance video recordings and bribery claims High Court refuses Seeram’s request for judicial review on being remanded after found guilty in assault case Accused in gold heist case granted bail by High Court