After 13 years of imprisonment marked by systemic abuse, degrading conditions and constitutional violations, a former Trinidadian inmate has secured a landmark $2.45 million damages award from the High Court, in a ruling that has exposed deep-rooted failures in the country’s prison system and reaffirmed that even incarcerated people retain fundamental human rights.
Nadia Pooran, who was 22 years old and just one month postpartum when she was remanded to the Golden Grove Women’s Prison in Arouca in April 2003, spent 13 years behind bars before her release in 2016 at age 35. Now 45, Pooran is currently pursuing a Master’s degree in Politics and International Relations at the University of Leicester, and her long fight for accountability has concluded with a scathing judicial rebuke of state negligence and institutional indifference.
Pooran was originally charged with murder alongside three co-accused, and spent five years on remand before pleading guilty to manslaughter in 2008. She was sentenced to 20 years’ hard labor, but successfully appealed the sentence in 2016, when the Court of Appeal replaced the original sentence with a 12-year term that aligned with the time she had already served. Following her release, Pooran filed a constitutional claim against the state, detailing a litany of abuses she endured during her incarceration.
In his judgment delivered Friday, Justice Robin Mohammed systematically upheld nearly all of Pooran’s claims, finding that her constitutional rights had been breached repeatedly across every aspect of her detention. When Pooran arrived at the prison, she had 22 post-childbirth sutures, was still bleeding and breastfeeding her newborn son, but prison authorities refused to conduct an admission medical examination – and the state was ultimately unable to produce any admission records to refute her account.
Pooran testified to persistent, horrific conditions inside the facility: cells designed to hold three inmates regularly crammed seven to nine women, with inadequate ventilation and natural light. Toilets were not available inside cells, forcing inmates to use open slop pails that collected feces, urine, menstrual blood and vomit, with no privacy for use. The stench of waste often permeated entire cell blocks, and Pooran told the court she developed severe hemorrhoids after suppressing her urge to use the open pails out of embarrassment. While a senior prison official disputed Pooran’s claims of overcrowding and poor sanitation during testimony, cross-examination confirmed her core assertions – that cells were excessively hot, the slop pails created unbearable odors, and no privacy existed for their use. The court ultimately ruled the state’s denials were unsupported by documentary evidence, and described the conditions as “degrading, persistent and in certain respects profoundly shocking.”
Beyond inhumane physical conditions, the court also upheld Pooran’s claims of repeated sexual abuse at the hands of prison officer Katyann Grant (formerly Blackie-Henry) over a three to four year period. Pooran detailed three specific incidents of abuse in 2009, alleging Grant used her positional authority to coerce sexual activity, threatening isolation and punishment if Pooran refused. Though Grant denied the allegations in an affidavit, she did not appear in court to testify under cross-examination, with the state citing illness. Justice Mohammed ruled that the medical certificate did not refute Pooran’s detailed, consistent testimony, which held up under sustained cross-examination, and accepted her account of the abuse in full.
The judgment also highlighted severe gaps in medical and mental health care at the facility. The court found that the required daily visits from a prison medical officer were not met, with a medical officer only attending the women’s prison twice weekly. Prescribed medication was often unavailable, and there was no guarantee that medications issued to prisoners would actually be administered. Pooran told the court she had to treat abscesses on her own, and faced lengthy delays for hospital care after suffering a fractured ankle. For mental health, no permanent psychologist was stationed at the women’s prison, with just two psychologists serving a total prison population of 3,000 to 4,000 inmates. Pooran received no meaningful psychological support during her 13 years in custody and lived with ongoing depression as a result, the court confirmed.
In addition to abuse and poor conditions, the court also found that Pooran was unlawfully treated after she filed an appeal against her sentence in 2015. Prison rules require that inmates awaiting appeal are classified as First Division prisoners and held in the appropriate remand section, but Pooran was wrongfully kept in the convicted division. The court noted that two other female inmates in identical positions were transferred to the proper section after filing appeals, and there was no legitimate justification for Pooran’s unequal treatment, violating her constitutional right to equal treatment under the law.
The state had attempted to dismiss Pooran’s claim as an abuse of process, arguing she had other available remedies and waited too long to file the case in 2020, but Justice Mohammed rejected that argument, noting the scope and multi-year duration of the constitutional violations made the constitutional motion appropriate.
In total, Pooran was awarded $2 million in compensatory damages and $450,000 in vindicatory damages, and the state was also ordered to cover all of her legal costs for senior and junior counsel. The court officially ruled that the treatment Pooran endured amounted to cruel and unusual punishment, a direct violation of Section 5(2)(b) of the Trinidad and Tobago Constitution.
In his closing remarks, Justice Mohammed delivered a stinging assessment of systemic failure within the prison system, noting: “The State, through its servants and agents, failed this Claimant at every level. That failure resulted from institutional indifference, administrative incompetence and a culture within the prison system that has been the subject of judicial and public commentary for decades. That culture cannot be allowed to persist. The Constitution demands better. The Claimant deserved better.”
The judge emphasized that constitutional protections do not expire when a person is convicted of a crime, and that the state’s responsibility for prisoner welfare does not end at the prison gate. He said he hoped the landmark ruling would send a clear, powerful message that prisoners’ constitutional rights must be respected, and that the judiciary will hold the state accountable when officials fail to uphold their legal and moral duties to people in custody. Pooran’s legal team was led by former attorney general Anand Ramlogan, SC, with support from additional junior counsel, while the state was represented by two state-hired attorneys.