Last Updated on Sunday, 4 October 2026, 20:01 by Writer
Former Region Four (Demerara-Mahaica) chairman Daniel Seeram’s High Court application for bail ahead of next month’s lower court sentencing for assaulting and harming his ex wife describes her blood clot as the “only” and “minor” injury she sustained.
On Monday, Justice Joy Persaud-Singh would hear Mr Seeram’s application for a judicial review of Sparendaam magistrate Abigail Gibbs’ decision to remand him to prison until November 2 when he would be sentenced, having been convicted last Friday for the assault of his ex-wife causing actual bodily harm at Cummings Lodge on September 11, 2023.
They divorced on May 11, 2022.
Justice Persaud-Singh late Friday ordered that Mr Seeram be on remand at the Sparendaam police station lockups pending the hearing of his application.
Ultimately, Mr Seeram wants the High Court to quash the one-month pre-sentence remand or the granting of bail by the High Court or the Magistrates’ Court.
Alternatively, Mr Seeram wants to be granted bail pending the hearing and determination of the judicial review, bringing forward of the November 2 sentencing date and Mr Seeram be set free until that date.
In making out an argument for bail or early sentencing by Sparendaam magistrate Abigail Gibbs, defence lawyer Nigel Hughes said in the application that “the magistrate failed to have regard to the minor nature of the injuries sustained by the VC (virtual complainant) – haematoma (blood clot) only and the fact that the VC was never detained for further medical treatment.”
The application for judicial review also says, in part, that no reasonable tribunal, directing itself on the law and having regard to the facts of this case, would have remanded Mr Seeram to custody for one month in circumstances where “the offence was a non-serious summary-tried offence involving minor injuries haematoma with no hospital detention.”
Other grounds for seeking to convince the High Court are that Mr Seeram is a first offender with no previous convictions, had an unblemished bail record, having attended every court date; realistically, he may not be punished by a jail term sentence, and he holds the position of coordinator of the border patrol unit.
“By remanding the Applicant in custody for one month pending sentencing, the Magistrate effectively imposed a period of custodial punishment before the probation report, victim impact statement and plea in mitigation had been received and considered. The remand thereby pre-judged and preempted the sentencing exercise, fettering the very discretion that the Magistrate had directed should be informed by those materials,” Mr Hughes also says in his application for a judicial review.
Mr Hughes said the magistrate failed to give sufficient reasons for refusing to grant bail to Mr Seeram, only stating that none of the grounds of section 9 of the Bail Act had been established”, a position that does not constitute adequate reasons and does not demonstrate that his seven submissions were heard or considered.
Mr Hughes says Mr Seeram’s constitutional rights to personal liberty and protection of the law have been breached.
