Cop in Video Leak Saga Seeks High Court Bail Amid CCTV Footage Allegations

Kaieteur News reported that Randy Greene, acting as next friend for police constable Ryan Greene, filed a fixed-date application in the High Court on November 3, 2026. This application seeks to overturn the decision made by Sparendaam Magistrate Abigail Gibbs on October 30, which denied bail due to the perceived seriousness of the offense. The application, filed by attorney-at-law Darren Wade, is brought under sections 6 and 32(3) of the Bail Act 2022, requesting that the court grant Greene bail pending the resolution of the charges against him.

Greene faces a joint charge with Mohamed under the Cybercrime Act 2018. The specific allegations state that on October 13, 2026, at the Guyana Police Force Command Centre in Liliendaal, East Coast Demerara, both men obtained electronic data, specifically CCTV footage related to the shooting incident that occurred on October 12 at Barr Street, Kitty, through unauthorized means. The charge further claims that this footage, which was secured on a computer system protected against unauthorized access, was intentionally provided to Mohamed without lawful justification, regardless of whether he knew he was authorized to receive or access the data.

Ryan Greene was reportedly arrested on October 26 and has remained in custody since that date. His father subsequently filed a habeas corpus application on October 28, which led to an affidavit being submitted by the police in defense. Darshan Ramdhani, KC, led the prosecution and objected to bail before Magistrate Gibbs, though the application noted that no evidence was presented to support this objection, with the prosecution relying solely on submissions. Magistrate Gibbs reportedly refused bail, stating that in the circumstances, bail was denied for Mr. Ryan Greene because of the serious nature of the offense.

The application contends that the offense does not meet the legal definition of a serious offense under the Bail Act, as the maximum prison term stipulated under the Cybercrime Act is five years. The application references section 2 of the Bail Act, which defines a serious offense as one punishable by death or imprisonment exceeding five years. Furthermore, the applicant challenges the State's assertion that Greene might interfere with the investigation, arguing that no substantial grounds were presented to support this concern. The application points out that no potential witness Greene might approach was identified, nor was any evidence he might tamper with disclosed, and that the police already possess the footage and other material relevant to the case.

Greene has no prior convictions, no pending charges, and has never been granted bail. His father asserts that the young constable poses no flight risk, citing his employment with the Guyana Police Force, his residence with his parents at a fixed address at Perry Street, Guyhoc Park, Georgetown, and his strong community ties. The application also questions the legal basis of the charge itself, arguing that CCTV footage from a public street, captured by the Government’s Safe Country surveillance cameras, does not constitute data related to the national security of the State, but rather was gathered for general crime prevention and public safety. This argument is supported by a police affidavit from the habeas corpus proceedings, which described the Safe Country system's purpose as monitoring and recording activities to prevent and detect crime, preserve law and order, protect property, and apprehend offenders.

The applicant further argues that the State's own sworn position acknowledges the footage as potential evidence in criminal proceedings, including matters previously initiated against Mohamed, Eugene Thorne, and Mario Mohamed. The application states that material intended for disclosure to accused persons for their defense cannot simultaneously be treated as data whose disclosure endangers national security. The court is also asked to consider discrepancies between the charge particulars and information in the police affidavit from the earlier habeas corpus proceedings, noting the affidavit placed the relevant events between the night of October 23 and the morning of October 24, while the charge alleges the footage was obtained on October 13. The application also mentions another police constable who has since been charged regarding allegations of downloading recordings and giving them to Greene.

In addition, the applicant argues that the prosecution's case should be weighed against the constitutional presumption of innocence and the right to personal liberty, suggesting that holding the 20-year-old constable in custody without evidence of a likelihood of witness interference or investigation obstruction would effectively punish him before trial. The applicant requests that the High Court hear the matter urgently and direct Greene to appear at the Sparendaam Magistrate’s Court on November 24, 2026, and on all subsequent dates set for the proceedings. Greene has stated his willingness to adhere to any conditions set by the court, including those designed to prevent witness interference or obstruction of justice. The matter is scheduled to be heard next week Tuesday.