High Court Declines Jurisdiction Over Bail Application for Police Constable Ryan Greene

According to the Guyana Times, the High Court in Demerara declined to exercise jurisdiction over a bail application submitted by Attorney-at-Law Darren Wade for 20-year-old Police Constable Ryan Greene, ruling that the application was not brought according to the procedures mandated by law.

Justice Zamilla Ally-Seepaul issued the ruling on Wednesday, striking out the fixed-date application that was filed on November 3. The Judge determined that the filing was an attempt to challenge a Magistrate's refusal of bail but failed to be presented as either an appeal or a judicial review.

The decision followed a day of arguments where King’s Counsel Darshan Ramdhani, representing Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Shalimar Ali-Hack, advocated for the striking out of the application, asserting that it was fundamentally flawed. The Judge clarified that her ruling did not establish the merits of Greene’s bail request.

Justice Ally-Seepaul stated that the principle of substance superseding form has limitations, noting that while procedural defects could be corrected, the court could not create a different case for a litigant or select a legal path the applicant had not chosen.

Greene is jointly charged with 39-year-old United States-sanctioned Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed under Section 9 of the Cybercrime Act. The charges involve the alleged unauthorized access to and sale of footage from the Safe Country Surveillance System, specifically relating to the shooting that occurred on October 12, 2026, outside the Georgetown residence of Senior Superintendent Prem Narine, who heads the Guyana Police Force’s Special Branch Unit.

Prosecutors alleged that Mohamed and two of his workers were involved in the shooting, and that footage from the Police Command Centre in Liliendaal was accessed without authorization and subsequently sold to Mohamed for $800,000. Greene and Mohamed were charged on October 30 and appeared before Magistrate Abigail Gibbs at the Sparendaam Magistrates’ Courts, where both were denied bail and remanded until November 24. Police Constable Ashton Chappelle, 24, was also charged with the same offense on November 9 and was remanded to prison until November 24.

Wade filed the application for Greene, seeking bail under Sections 6 and 32(3) of the Bail Act, as well as Articles 139(1) and 144(2)(a) of the Constitution of Guyana. Greene’s father, Randy Green, was identified as acting as his son’s next friend, and Detective Cadet Officer Stephen Pines was named as the respondent.

The DPP challenged the court’s jurisdiction and requested that the application be struck out. King’s Counsel Darshan Ramdhani argued that the Bail Act outlines two methods to contest a Magistrate’s bail determination: an appeal to the Full Court under Section 17 or judicial review under Section 20.

Justice Ally-Seepaul determined that Greene’s application was neither an appeal under Section 17 nor a judicial review application filed in compliance with the Judicial Review Act and Part 56 of the Civil Procedure Rules. She observed that the claims regarding the Magistrate’s failure to assess statutory criteria, lack of evidence to support the objection to bail, and failure to provide written reasons constituted challenges to the legality and propriety of the Magistrate’s ruling.

The Judge also rejected the argument that Section 32(3) permitted the High Court to re-evaluate the bail request independently. She stated that this provision maintains jurisdiction otherwise held by the court but does not independently establish a procedure for reviewing a Magistrate’s decision.

Justice Ally-Seepaul commented that the Magistrate’s decision constitutes a judicial determination with legal effect and could not be disregarded merely because the accused claimed entitlement to bail; such a decision must be challenged via the legally prescribed route.

While acknowledging the importance of personal liberty and the need to prevent substantive justice from being overridden by procedural errors, the Judge noted that the application did not clearly specify the jurisdiction being invoked. Furthermore, she noted that citing constitutional provisions alone did not automatically convert the application into a properly constituted claim for constitutional relief.

In the ruling, Justice Ally-Seepaul also addressed the Attorney General’s (AG) involvement, distinguishing between being notified of proceedings and being properly joined as a party. She noted the AG was brought to the court’s attention because Greene’s application referenced constitutional provisions, but she found that her subsequent direction to serve the AG did not retroactively transform the application into a properly constituted constitutional proceeding.

Given these circumstances, the Judge declined to order any amendment or conversion of the matter into judicial review or constitutional proceedings, especially since Wade maintained the application was not for judicial review. Consequently, the Judge ruled that the court should not exercise jurisdiction over the application in its current form and struck it out.

As a result of the court’s decision, Greene remains in custody at a prison, as the court did not rule on the merits of his bail application. Separately, Mohamed’s mother, Bonita Mohamed, has submitted a bail application for him, which is set for a second hearing on Thursday before Justice Priscilla Chandra-Hanif at the High Court.