A legal dispute over whether the High Court was properly approached has delayed a decision on bail for 20-year-old Police Constable Ryan Greene, who remains on remand in connection with the alleged unauthorised disclosure of police surveillance footage to Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed.
Greene’s application came before Justice Zamilla Ally-Seepaul on Tuesday, but the court was unable to examine the substantive request after prosecutors raised objections concerning the legal procedure used to initiate the proceedings.
The prosecution, led by King’s Counsel Darshan Ramdhani, challenged the court’s jurisdiction to hear the application in its present form, arguing that the defence had failed to invoke the appropriate legal provisions.
Greene’s father, Randy Greene, filed the application on his son’s behalf through attorney-at-law Darren Wade, seeking to overturn the October 30 decision of Magistrate Abigail Gibbs to refuse bail.
During Tuesday’s proceedings, Ramdhani argued that the application was procedurally defective and raised questions about whether the correct persons had been named as respondents.
He referred the court to several provisions of the Bail Act, including Section 17, which provides for appeals to the Full Court, and Section 20, which addresses judicial review.
The prosecutor also examined Sections 18 and 21, dealing with the High Court’s powers concerning bail, as well as Section 22, which preserves the court’s constitutional jurisdiction.
Ramdhani maintained that the defence had not followed the appropriate procedure to bring the matter before the court, leaving the prosecution unable to properly address the application.
Another major disagreement concerned the decision to name police prosecutor Hinds as a respondent in the proceedings.
Ramdhani contended that the application should have included the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), the Attorney General and, where necessary, the magistrate whose ruling was being challenged.
He further informed the court that the Attorney General had not been served with the application.
However, Wade rejected the prosecution’s objections, arguing that Hinds was properly included because he had acted as a prosecutor on behalf of the DPP in the original criminal proceedings.
The defence attorney relied on provisions of the Police Act, which empower police officers to prosecute certain matters on behalf of the DPP.
Wade maintained that the issue before the High Court was primarily a legal question and questioned why procedural objections should prevent the court from considering his client’s request for release.
He also emphasised that Greene’s personal liberty was at stake while the parties debated the technical requirements of the application.
Justice Ally-Seepaul, however, made it clear that the jurisdictional challenge must be resolved before the court could consider whether Greene should be granted bail.
The judge explained that notifying someone about legal proceedings was not necessarily the same as properly joining that person as a party, particularly where the individual or office was expected to respond to the application.
Following the exchanges, Wade was instructed to submit written arguments addressing the concerns raised by the prosecution.
Ramdhani was expected to file the prosecution’s submissions on Tuesday evening, while the defence was given until midday Wednesday, November 11, to respond.
The judge indicated that the matter could return before her on Wednesday afternoon.
No determination was made on Greene’s eligibility for bail.
The High Court proceedings follow Greene’s unsuccessful application for bail at the Sparendaam Magistrates’ Court on October 30.
His legal team has argued that the alleged cybercrime offence does not satisfy the definition of a serious offence under the Bail Act because the maximum custodial penalty is five years.
The defence contends that the legislation defines a serious offence as one punishable by death or imprisonment exceeding five years.
Wade has also challenged the prosecution’s concerns that Greene could interfere with witnesses or evidence if released.
According to the defence, Greene has no previous convictions, maintains strong community connections and remains a serving member of the Guyana Police Force.
His attorneys argue that these circumstances should be considered when determining whether bail can be granted under suitable conditions.
Greene was arrested on October 26 and appeared before Magistrate Gibbs four days later alongside Opposition Leader Mohamed.
The two men were jointly charged under the Cybercrime Act in relation to the alleged unlawful acquisition and disclosure of electronic data from the Guyana Police Force’s Command Centre at Liliendaal, East Coast Demerara.
The footage reportedly captured an October 12 shooting incident outside the Barr Street, Kitty, residence of Senior Superintendent Prem Narine, who heads the Police Force’s Special Branch.
Investigators allege that Greene obtained the surveillance recordings without authorisation and supplied them to Mohamed in exchange for $800,000.
The prosecution previously opposed bail for both men, raising concerns about the nature of the alleged offence and the possibility of interference with the ongoing investigation.
Magistrate Gibbs subsequently refused their applications and remanded them to prison until November 24.
Another police officer, Constable Ashton Chappelle, has since been charged and remanded in connection with the same investigation.
