Prisoners are humans

The sinister and evil wave of crime that has changed our way of life makes the topic of respect for the human rights of prisoners a delicate and sensitive topic. The cosmetic changes made for the summit might fool our foreign guests, but the people who struggle to cope with the terrifying onslaught of crime have to face the raw and harsh reality of living in a place where criminals are at large and in charge.

Everyone in prison has either been arrested or charged with a crime of some sort. These crimes can range from failure to pay a traffic ticket, or arrears of maintenance, to rape and murder. Prisoners may be on remand, awaiting trial (presumed to be innocent), or convicted and serving time. The experience of Rajesh Mathura, who won his constitutional motion against the State, is a powerful reminder of the sad state of affairs of the criminal justice system.

Mathura won his case in the High Court before Justice Rajendra Narine, but the State appealed. This appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal, comprising Justices Margot Warner, Stanley John and Paula Mae-Weekes. The facts are taken from the judgment of justice Narine. On February 12, 1998, Rajesh Mathura was arrested on a charge of assault occasioning a wound. He was taken before a magistrate in San Fernando.

He pleaded not guilty, and bail was fixed by the magistrate, after which the applicant was placed in a cell downstairs of the Magistrates’ Court with about 25 other prisoners. At about 2.45 pm Mathura observed a prisoner (Thomas) holding a cigarette lighter, which he used to set fire to a jersey. He threw the jersey on some food boxes placed at the entrance of the cell. The boxes caught fire.

Turn back

After this, another prisoner (McDavid) took a piece of iron chain and proceeded to hit Mathura on his head with it, causing him to bleed. McDavid and another prisoner (Briggs) demanded the applicant’s shirt. Briggs proceeded to rub the applicant’s back with a razor blade, and his shoulder started to bleed.

Thomas, McDavid and Briggs beat Mathura and took away his shirt, pants and shoes, leaving him in his underwear. The cell was filled with smoke. Mathura called for help. About 20 minutes elapsed before anyone came to his assistance. The fire was put out, and the prisoners were taken out in batches of two at a time. Mathura was the last person to be removed from the cell. This was about half-an-hour after he was attacked. He was bleeding from his wounds, and placed in the prison van with the other prisoners.

The van left the Magistrates’ Court. Mathura was bawling for help, calling out to the officers to stop the van and help him. Other prisoners began pounding the side of the van, demanding that the vehicle be turned back and that Mathura be taken to hospital. After ten minutes, the van returned to the Magistrates’ Court. Mathura was taken off. He lost consciousness and awoke in San Fernando General Hospital some time later.

An Inspector Ali visited Mathura at hospital. He told the police he would give a statement after he secured bail, since he was scared he would be killed by the prisoners if he spoke to the police. He did, however, tell them that although he did not know the names of the prisoners, he would be able to recognise them. Mathura was released on bail a few days later. He gave a statement to the police on February 20, 1998. Ali showed him a book with photographs, and he was able to identify two of the men.

Fatal omission

He was not asked to attend any identification parade. Charges of malicious wounding and malicious damage were laid against the three prisoners who had attacked Mathura. On March 15, 2001, Mathura gave evidence against them. No other eyewitnesses were called.

The magistrate upheld a no-case submission, based on the evidence that the applicant never pointed out the accused people. The prosecutor, a sergeant of police, conceded the case on the no-case submission. The prosecution of this crime committed against Mathura (under the watchful eyes of police and prison officers charged with the specific responsibility of supervising) was so incompetent that it sounds like a comedy. How on earth could the police prosecutor not call upon Mathura to point out the men whom he had already identified as assaulting him?

Why was no other prisoner who witnessed the entire incident called to give evidence? Could the magistrate not have simply asked Mathura if these were the men who assaulted and battered him, if he realised a fatal omission was made by the prosecution led by a police officer who has to match skills with a trained defence lawyer? This shameful tragedy and injustice is an indelible stain on the system of justice. To add insult to injury, no one has been disciplined, and life goes on as usual for everyone except Mr Rajesh Mathura.
(To be continued)

By Anand Ramlogan 2009-03-22