The Office of the Attorney General has issued what it says is clarification regarding correspondence from the Privy Council in a recent matter involving Dominic and Genevieve Hadeed.
It says the State sought leave to appeal to the Privy Council on the evening of July 17th, after being dissatisfied with the decision of the first Court of Appeal.
A differently constituted, second Court of Appeal subsequently granted leave and imposed a stay of the initial decision, which meant the Hadeeds, would remain detained while the appeal went before the Privy Council.
According to the AG’s Office, the State filed its Notice of Appeal seeking an expedited hearing, while 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 31st to September 30th 2026.
The Privy Council responded to the Hadeeds’ application stating that the Court did not wish to deal with the appeal in a rush in the final days of the term.
The Court also reportedly indicated that the immediate issue of the Hadeeds’ continued detention could be more conveniently addressed through an application to lift the stay, and confirmed that the appeal itself would be listed in October.
The AG’s Office said this was followed by “widespread misleading reports and commentary” which suggested the State had been “defeated” or “denied” by the Privy Council.
It says the Privy Council’s Registrar subsequently felt it necessary to issue a further clarification of the Court’s position to the parties.
Based on this correspondence, the Office of the Attorney General has stated the following:
- The State’s (Appellant’s) appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was successfully accepted and as is clear in the correspondence above, has been rostered for the new term which commences in October, 2026 for a date yet to be fixed.
- The Hadeed’s (Respondent’s) application for an expedited hearing for early release by the Privy Council in 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 stated that an application (perhaps in writing) could be made to the Court by the Respondents (Hadeeds) for interim relief i.e. early release.
- In the meantime, the Attorneys for the Hadeeds sought to approach the Court of Appeal in Trinidad for their early release.
It has also since cautioned that intentional misrepresentation of statements, decisions and directives of the Court amounts to Contempt of Court.
