It was a cold case. Fifty-four-year-old Esther Williams was found dead at her home on April 28, 2014, in Cumuto, Trinidad. Her common-law husband and daughter, Sewak Jagroo and Shastri Jagroo, told police that they had discovered Williams’ body hanging, indicating that she had taken her own life. However, a post-mortem examination revealed that Williams’ death was caused by ligature strangulation and that she had sustained blunt force trauma inconsistent with suicide.
In 2018, the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service’s new Cold Case Unit arrested Sewak and Shastri Jagroo, charging them with murder despite lacking substantial evidence tying them to the crime. The father and daughter were remanded to prison, where they languished for nearly seven years awaiting a trial that never came. Sewak Jagroo died in custody on January 1, 2025. After renewed efforts by her defense attorney, Shastri Jagroo, now 32, was released from prison on June 19, 2025. The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions filed notices of discontinuance, formally ending its case against the Jagroos. However, there is little relief for Shastri Jagroo who was ripped away from friends, family, and society for years, prevented from completing her university degree, and exposed to the trauma of incarceration — a life disrupted and robbed of critical time.
Unfortunately, the Jagroos’ experience is not an isolated occurrence, but rather a symptom of a weak fair trial rights framework. In Trinidad and Tobago, people spend four years on average in pretrial detention, and many are incarcerated for more than 10 years awaiting trial. Trinidad and Tobago’s constitution lacks an express right to a speedy trial or trial within reasonable time, unlike many of its Commonwealth counterparts. Numerous legal challenges over the years have done little to move the needle in favor of expedition. Domestic courts maintain that Trinidad’s constitution protects only the right to a fair trial, not a speedy one. Post-independence from the British, Trinidad and Tobago retained the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as its final court of appeal. Located in London, the Privy Council has upheld Trinidad’s domestic court decisions, denying that fair trial rights were violated even when the accused waited 13 years for both an indictment and trial. The resistance of local courts and the Privy Council to recognize a right to trial within a reasonable time has undermined public confidence in the criminal legal system, fostering cynicism towards the judiciary and desperation amongst detainees and their loved ones.
International and regional human rights bodies have condemned Trinidad’s extensive delays in criminal proceedings. However, the country’s government has taken steps to limit external influence on domestic matters, particularly those involving individuals facing the death penalty. In 2002, the United Nations Human Rights Committee found that Trinidad and Tobago violated article 14(3)(c) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which provides that everyone is entitled to be tried without undue delay. In Kennedy (2) v. Trinidad and Tobago, the Committee concluded that the six-year delay in Trinidad’s judicial proceedings between the ordering of a re-trial and the dismissal of the accused’s second appeal were unreasonable. Today, individuals sentenced to death in Trinidad are unable to appeal to the Human Rights Committee for matters related to their detention, prosecution, trial, conviction, or appeals. Trinidad and Tobago “withdrew from the Optional Protocol to the ICCPR and re-acceded with a reservation that the Human Rights Committee could not consider petitions brought by people under sentence of death.” Although Trinidad claims this reservation does not impact its obligations under the ICCPR itself, it does prevent Human Rights Committee oversight in cases involving the death penalty—even where undue delay may be implicated.
Regional human rights bodies have also rebuked Trinidad’s interminable adjudication processes, and the state has similarly curtailed their oversight capabilities. In the case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) found that Trinidad violated the right to trial within a reasonable time, pursuant to article 7(5) of the American Convention, for dozens of people when more than four years lapsed between their arrests and their trials. Like the Human Rights Committee, the Inter-American system had hampered Trinidad’s utilization of the death penalty, and the government denounced the American Convention, terminating its treaty obligations and the jurisdiction of the IACtHR. Trinidad’s repudiation of the American Convention leaves its citizens susceptible to protracted carceral punishment before trial and virtually no means of recourse. Undermining the timely processing of court cases was not Trinidad’s explicit reason for withdrawing from international and regional human rights instruments. However, in seeking to deny rights to those facing the death penalty, Trinidad abrogated the right to trial within a reasonable time for all those under its jurisdiction.
The absence of an explicit constitutional right to trial within a reasonable time and limited regional oversight have exacerbated fair trial rights violations in Trinidad and Tobago, particularly for those who are imprisoned and denied bail. Lengthy remand erodes the presumption of innocence, as individuals are held for months or years without trial, effectively punished without the opportunity to defend themselves. This hollows the foundational principle of “innocent until proven guilty.” Research shows that pretrial detainees are much more likely to plead guilty, even when innocent, simply to secure release. Imprisonment exerts coercive pressure which can compromise voluntary and informed decisions and induce guilty pleas. Pretrial detention also restricts the accused’s ability to access counsel, gather witnesses, or review evidence, thereby impairing their ability to prepare a defense.
In addition to legal consequences, lengthy pretrial detention also causes social and economic harm. Prolonged detention separates families, disrupting households and communities. Children of detained parents often experience trauma, educational disruption, and increased risk of entering child welfare systems. For the individual detained, even brief periods of incarceration can result in job termination, eviction, or loss of child custody. Pretrial detention also worsens mental health and exposes individuals to abuse and violence. Individuals detained on remand at Trinidad’s Golden Grove Prison have reported exposure to gang violence, overcrowding, inadequate medical care, and poor sanitation. These challenges are amplified by Trinidad’s enormous backlog of cases which has largely gone unaddressed.
Trinidad and Tobago’s current legal system leaves justice delayed—and often denied. Bridging the gaps in Trinidad and Tobago’s fair trial rights framework will require more than procedural reform. There must be a constitutional and political commitment to ensure that timely adjudication of criminal proceedings is not merely an ideal, but a right guaranteed to all.
Alexus McNally is a human rights attorney and a Teaching Associate at the University of Nottingham where she teaches courses related to criminal law, legal theory, and human rights.
