The Office of the Attorney General has issued a clarification regarding correspondence from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the matter of Dominic Hadeed and Genevieve Hadeed (Respondents) v Commissioner of Police and Three Others (Appellants), following what it described as misrepresentation of that correspondence by local media and social media platforms.
According to the release, dated July 29, 2026, the State, the Appellants in the matter sought leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on the evening of July 17, after being dissatisfied with a decision of the first Court of Appeal (Justices Rajkumar, Dean-Armorer and Charles).
A differently constituted, second Court of Appeal (comprising the Chief Justice, and Justices Rahim and Mohammed) subsequently granted leave and imposed a stay of Justice Rajkumar’s decision. That stay meant the Respondents, the Hadeeds, would remain detained in prison while the appeal proceeded before the Privy Council.
The State filed its Notice of Appeal seeking an expedited hearing, in line with the Court of Appeal’s order granting final leave on the basis that reasonable steps would be taken to obtain an urgent hearing before the Privy Council. Counsel for the Hadeeds subsequently sought an urgent hearing on the stay, aiming to secure their clients’ release ahead of the Privy Council’s recess, which runs from July 31 to September 30, 2026.
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council responded to the Hadeeds’ application for an expedited hearing on the stay, with the President and Deputy President directing that the Court did not wish to deal with the appeal in a rush in the final days of the term. The Court indicated that the immediate issue of the Respondents’ continued detention could more conveniently be addressed through an application by the Respondents to lift the stay, and confirmed that the appeal itself would be listed in October.
The Office of the Attorney General noted that following widespread misleading reports and commentary including an article titled “No Urgent Hearing in London – Hadeeds Remain in Prison” which suggested the State had in some way been “defeated” or “denied” by the Privy Council, the Registrar of the Privy Council, Laura Angus, felt it necessary to issue a further clarification of the Court’s position to the parties. The Office described this step as unprecedented, saying it speaks to the level of misinformation surrounding the Court’s stated position.
In her correspondence, Angus clarified that if an application is made by the Respondents to lift the stay imposed by the second Constitution of the Court of Appeal, the Court would issue directions to ensure it is dealt with speedily on the papers over the following week, with the Appellant given a shortened time to respond.
Based on this correspondence, the Office of the Attorney General clarified the following:
The State’s appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was successfully accepted and has been rostered for the new term commencing in October 2026, with a date yet to be fixed.
The Hadeeds’ application for an expedited hearing for early release within the current term, which concludes at the end of July 2026, was not accepted by the Privy Council.
The Court never denied any appeal by the State. It merely indicated that an application could be made by the Respondents for interim relief namely, early release.
In the meantime, attorneys for the Hadeeds sought to approach the Court of Appeal in Trinidad for their clients’ early release.
The Office of the Attorney General cautioned members of the legal fraternity and the media that intentional misrepresentation of statements, decisions and directives of the Court amounts to the offence of Contempt of Court. Persons wishing to deliver reports, commentaries or statements on the matter were advised to seek clarification and ensure that positions represented in the public domain are factual and true.