Court in Trinidad dismisses case against men detained under SOEs

PORT OF SPAIN, Trinidad, CMC -A High Court in Trinidad and Tobago has dismissed the attempted murder case against three men who were separately detained under two states of emergency (SOE) in 2025 after police again failed to comply with court orders.

The men – Shane Benito, Kishon Edwards, and Kellon Sorais- had been re-charged in the attempted murder of a man on May 2, 2024, at Turtle Beach, Heritage Park, in Tobago.

Benito was among 50 individuals detained under ministerial preventive detention orders during the state of emergency, which was declared on December 30, 2024.

He was detained under a ministerial preventive detention order on January 31, 2025, and a subsequent order was made for his detention at the Remand Prison in Golden Grove, Arouca, on April 5, 2025.

The SOE ended on April 13 and Benito is reportedly detained by Venezuelan authorities.

Edwards and Sorais were both detained under preventive detention orders and are alleged to be members of the Rasta City/Seven Gang.

They were reported to have conspired to murder a police officer and members of a rival gang.

In dismissing the charges on Tuesday, Master Indira Chinebas noted that the Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act had been in force for over two years, giving sufficient time for all stakeholders to become familiar with the law and the consequences of non-compliance.

“There is an order in place. It can’t be that the courts, in 2026, are being dragged back to preliminary inquiries,” she said, noting that the matter had previously been discharged, re-laid, challenged, and overruled, yet there was still no explanation for what had occurred.

“Sufficient time was given to resubmit the file and prepare for the sufficiency hearing,” she said, adding that her court routinely granted extensions within reason, but none had been sought by the prosecution in this matter.

Chinebas said that the police’s explanation of administrative mishaps was not an acceptable justification for the delay, and accordingly discharged the three men.

Her ruling followed submissions from police constable Subero, who said there was some “confusion” surrounding the resubmission of the file to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) after the attempted murder charge was re-laid in 2025.

In March 2025, another master had discharged the men after police failed to comply with scheduling orders.

Subero explained that although an indictment had previously been filed, when the charges were re-laid in April 2025, and new scheduling orders were issued by Chinebas, the file was not submitted to the DPP to facilitate the filing of a new indictment against the three men.

In asking the court for a two-week adjournment to allow for the indictment to be filed, Subero also conceded that it was unlikely the state would be ready to proceed with the January 20 sufficiency hearing.

Defence attorney Keron Ramkhalwhan told the court that the explanation by the State was unacceptable, particularly in light of its admission that it would be impossible to file the indictment in time for the sufficiency hearing.

He had at a previous hearing, argued that the re-laying of the charges not only undermined the integrity of the judicial process but also placed his clients in a perpetual state of legal jeopardy, exposing them to repeated prosecutions without finality.

“This is especially egregious where, as in the present case,” Ramkhalwhan said, adding that the re-laying of the charges constituted an abuse of the court’s process and offended the principles of fairness, legal certainty and finality in litigation.

“The court’s processes must not be manipulated to give the prosecution multiple opportunities to rectify its own failings, particularly at the expense of an accused who has been lawfully discharged.

“The proper course available to the police officers is to appeal the decision,” he said, adding, “accordingly, this court must determine whether it is seized with jurisdiction to adjudicate the current charges, having regard to their prior discharge by the master.

“In this regard, I submit that the decision of the police officers to re-lay the same charges that were discharged is an abuse of process and/or contrary to law and/or ultra vires the Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act.

“In other words, this court has no jurisdiction to treat with the present charges laid. The charges as laid ought to be dismissed forthwith,” Ramkhalwhan said.

Follow The Gleaner on X, formerly Twitter, and Instagram @JamaicaGleaner and on Facebook @GleanerJamaica. Send us a message on WhatsApp at 1-876-499-0169 or email us at onlinefeedback@gleanerjm.com or editors@gleanerjm.com.