IT was the case which made the law in 1994.
Acting judge, Mr. Vidyanand Persaud observing that the Applicant Compton English, had been  denied bail on a bailable  offence for 100 days, granted bail in the sum of $500, 000, on the ground  that the applicant’s Fundamental  Rights had been infringed.

The facts disclosed  that  the Applicant  Compton English  was arrested and taken before the Chief Magistrate  to answer 75 charges  of fraudulent  conversion.
After he pleaded not guilty the  magistrate  rejected  several applications on his  behalf that he be admitted to  bail pending trial and his remand in custody continued.
The Applicant applied  to the High Court  for a declaration  that his  fundamental right to be tried within a reasonable time  guaranteed in Article 139 (4) of the Constitution had been contravened and compensation.
Among other things,  the  Acting Judge held;
(I)   In all the circumstances  of the case , the continuous remand in custody , for a period  in excess of 100 days  of a citizen who was charged with bailable offences,  the time for disposal  of which was not given by the respondent and  which could not be estimated , and for which remand no good grounds were advanced  was unreasonable and unconstitutional.

The Applicant was  entitled to the declaration sought at  (a) of the motion,  that is to say,that his guaranteed and fundamental constitutionl rights  were contravened.
(ii)   No Order would be made in respect of  (b)  since senior counsel for the Applicant had indicated that he was not pursuing the prayer for damages.
(III)   In  view  of the fact  that the charges against the applicant alleged the conversion  of a sum in excess  of $6, 0O0,000.00,  the Court directed that he be admitted  to bail in the sum of $500, 000.00  with surety in like sum.
The Acting Judge had referred to 26 cases in relation to his judgment.
Senior Counsel Mr. Doodnauth Singh and Dr. Barton Scotland appeared for the Applicant.
Deputy Solicitor General Mr. Fitz Peters appeared for the Respondent.
Acting Judge Mr. Vidyanand Persaud in his judgment said : On 20th   December 1993 the Applicant Compton English was arrested and taken before the Magistrate  to answer  75 charges  of fraudulent  conversion.
He pleaded not guilty to the charges and on this on several appearances thereafter the learned Maistrate rejected applications on his behalf that he be admitted to bail pending trial.
On 31st  March, 1994, the Applicant came by way of motion to the High Court seeking inter alia a declaration that his guaranteed and fundamental rights defined in Article 139 (4) of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana are being and are likely to be  contravened by his continuing remand  in custody.
By that time the trial of one of the charges  against him had commenced ; in fact the prosecution had closed its case and no-case submissions were urged on his behalf.
According to Judge Persaud,the affidavits on both sides were somewhat  telelgraphic but happily  there has been  concurrence between  the parties     on the factual issues of which the Court sought clarification.
Article 139 (4), on which the applicant  relies , provides as follows:
“Any person who is arrested or detained:
(a)    For the purpose of bringing him before a Court in execution of the Order of a Court; or
(b)    Upon reasonale suspicion of him having commit or being about to commit a criminal offence is not tried within a reasonable time, then, without prejudice  to any further  proceedings which may be brought  against  him, he shall be released either unconditionally or upon reasonable conditions ,including in particular such conditions  as are reasonable necessary to ensure that he appears at a later date for trial or for  proceeding preliminary to trial .
“In the Affidavit in Answer deposed to be Inspector  of Police .October, the prosecutor of the charges  against the applicant ,and filed on behalf of the Attorney General , it was contended  that the Applicant was in lawful custody and that  the denial of bail was not a contravention of the Constitution.
On 15th April, 1994, counsel for the Attorney General sought leave to file an Affidavit  setting out the reasons  of the Chief Magistrate ,  for his refusal of bail.
He stated that on reflection he felt that the Chief Magistrate ,rather than the prosecutor , was the proper person .to rebut  the  complaint  of the Applicant and he contended  that th only legally  permissible manner of so doing was by the filing  of an affidavit as provided for by Order 34, rule 2 of  the rules of the High Court, Chapter,3:02
I noted that the Chief Magistrate was “just across the road” and could be invited to attend and give oral evidence  of the matters  intended to be  set out in his affidavit .No app[lication was made  for his attendance  and I granted leave for the filing of the affidavit or for  the submission of a  memorandum from the Magistrate later on in the said day
After delving in all aspects of the case  the Acting judge concluding his judgment by saying,”I find, in all the  circumstances of this case, that the continuous  remand in custody for a period  in excess of 100 days  of a citizen who is charged  with bailable  offences ,the time for disposal of which was  not given by the  Respondent and which cannot be estimated , and for which remand  no good grounds have been advanced  Is unreasonable and unconstitutional.
The applicant is entitled  to the declaration sought at  (a) of the motion, that is to say, that his guaranteed and fundamental  constitutional rights have been contravened.
No order is made in respect of (b) since Senior Counsel  for the Applicant  indicated  that he was not pursuing the prayer for damages.
In view of the fact that the charges  against  the Applicant  allege the  conversion of a sum in excess of $6, 000, 000.00  I direct that he be Admitted to bail in the sum of $500,000.00 with surety in like sum.
Counsel  for the Respondent  expressed a preference for taxed  costs and I accordingly order that the Applicant do recover his costs  to be taxed.