A man convicted of murder has launched legal action against the Commissioner of Corrections and the Minister of Justice, alleging his constitutional rights have been breached in prison.

Wolda Gardner, who is serving a 20-year sentence for the fatal 2012 shooting of Malcolm Augustus, has claimed he was unlawfully detained in his maximum security cell 23 hours a day for more than two years before he was convicted.

He further argued that after his conviction he was repeatedly detained in his cell after losing “privileges” without being given an opportunity to defend himself and did not receive visits from doctors during such periods to assess his wellbeing.

While Gardner argued he had been unconstitutionally detained and suffered inhumane treatment, Brian Myrie, from the Attorney-General’s Chambers, said the detainment was lawful and constitutional in the circumstances.

Gardner was first remanded into custody for the murder of Mr Augustus, who was shot dead near Wellington Back Road in St George's on Christmas Eve 2012, in January 2013.

While he maintained his innocence, he was found guilty by a jury of both murder and using a firearm to commit an indictable act and was sentenced to 20 years behind bars for the offence.

At a hearing in the Supreme Court yesterday Gardner said he was still fighting against his conviction and had launched a separate legal action over alleged inhumane treatment and unlawful detainment while he has been incarcerated at Westgate.

“I am not here challenging my lawful detention,” he said. “That is happening in another place.

“I’m here challenging how I’m being confined to a cell. I was committed by law to Westgate and while there my right to protection from arbitrary detention was breached.”

Representing himself, Gardner said that when he was remanded, he was immediately locked up in the maximum security wing of the prison. There, he said, he was kept in his cell for all but one hour a day.

Gardner argued that, because he had not been convicted at that stage, he had done nothing to warrant being held in such conditions and should have been kept with other inmates on remand.

“There is a legal status of innocent until found guilty and I was confined to a maximum security cell for 23 hours a day without an assessment to see if I could handle that,” he said. “They were treating me as if I had been found guilty.”

Gardner also noted that while inmates can be restricted to their cells for some breaches of conduct, the maximum period was for 28 days for serious offences.

“It is wrong to house a person confined in a cell for 23 hours a day when the rules state confinement to a cell shall not exceed 14 days, or 28 days for mutiny or personal violence against a prison officer,” he said.

He said that after his conviction he was, on several occasions, confined to his cell after he was awarded a loss of privileges, but argued that under the Prisons Act they were two separate punishments.

He also alleged that corrections officers had detained him in his cell through “lockdowns” without giving him the opportunity to present a case why he should not be punished.

Mr Myrie, however, responded that constitutional rights are conditional and lawful detainment inherently involved some loss of freedom.

He told the court that Gardner was initially remanded in maximum security because that was the policy for those charged with murder or attempted murder, although Puisne Judge Alan Richards said he did not see that policy in documents before the court.

Mr Myrie said that the one hour minimum of time outside of the cell was in effect while Gardner was in maximum security, but that was expanded as soon as he was moved to another part of the prison.

He said that Gardner was occasionally moved back to maximum security during his time in custody in the wake of breaches of the rules of conduct, but even during these times he was not held in solitary confinement because he still had regular contact with prison officers.

Mr Myrie said that Gardner had received 23 loss-of-privilege awards for his conduct behind bars, including threats made to officers, but said that any confinement to his cell was a security measure rather than an additional punishment.

In all of those cases, he added that none of the periods of confinement were longer than were allowed under the law.

Mr Myrie also said that there was no evidence before the court of any lockdowns.

He added: “If he was in lockdown as he has stated, I have no evidence of it.

“Mr Gardner didn’t supply it. I was not asked for it.”

He also argued that if there had been inhumane or degrading treatment as alleged by Gardner, he should have made a complaint to the commissioner and, if he did not like the results, he could file an appeal.

“To simply come to courts like this is an abuse of process,” he said. “If you have other means of address, you should not come straight to the court.”

Mr Justice Richards reserved judgment in the case to a later date.

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding court cases. As we are legally liable for any libellous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers