‘Ordinary Policing Is Not National Security’: Father of Police Constable Ryan Greene Moves to High Court for Bail, Challenging Cybercrime Charge and Prosecution Evidence

By Travis Chase | HGP Nightly News |

GEORGETOWN, GUYANA — The legal battle surrounding the unauthorized disclosure of state surveillance recordings has taken another major turn as Randy Greene, father of 20-year-old Police Constable Ryan Greene, has moved to the Demerara High Court in an urgent bid to secure his son’s pretrial release from prison.

In a Fixed Date Application filed on November 3, 2026, through attorney-at-law Darren Wade, the defense is petitioning the Supreme Court of Judicature to overturn the October 30 ruling of the Sparendaam Magistrates’ Court, which denied bail and remanded the young policeman to prison alongside Leader of the Opposition Azruddin Mohamed until November 24, 2026.

The application argues that the prosecution failed to establish any credible statutory grounds under the Bail Act to warrant custodial detention, while challenging whether the alleged conduct can be legally categorized as an offense affecting national security under Section 9 of the Cybercrime Act 2018. The High Court is scheduled to hear Greene’s application on Tuesday, November 10, 2026.

The Legal Challenge: Distinguishing Public Safety from National Security

At the core of Constable Greene’s High Court challenge is an attack on the legal validity of the charge brought by the Special Prosecutions Branch:

• The Scope of Section 9: Greene was charged under Section 9 of the Cybercrime Act 2018, which penalizes the unauthorized obtaining, accessing, or transmission of electronic data relating to the “national security of the State” or protected systems.
• Safe Country System Purpose: Wade contends that the video footage at the center of the controversy originated from the Government’s public Safe Country camera network, an infrastructure designed for civic crime prevention, street-level monitoring, and ordinary law enforcement.
• National Security vs. General Policing: The defense submits that ordinary police surveillance of public thoroughfares does not constitute “national security” data, arguing that conflating public street monitoring with state secrets creates an unsustainable legal foundation that misapplies the statute.
• Statutory Penalty Threshold: The application highlights that an offense under this section carries a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment and is not a capital or non-bailable offense that should automatically trigger pretrial detention.

Prosecution’s Case Scrutinized: ‘Zero Evidence of Tampering’

The application challenges the prosecution’s objections raised before Magistrate Abigail Gibbs at Sparendaam, arguing that the state’s claims of potential interference lack evidential backing:

• Evidence Already Secured: Wade points out that the digital recordings in question have already been seized, cataloged, and secured by state investigators, eliminating any possibility of evidence destruction or tampering.
• Absence of Vulnerable Witnesses: The defense emphasizes that the prosecution failed to identify a single witness whom Constable Greene would be in a position to approach, threaten, or improperly influence if released on bond.
• Inconsistent Allegations of Extraction: The application cites conflicting narratives in the police investigation regarding how the video files were actually extracted from the Police Command Centre, arguing that Greene’s alleged access level was inconsistent with allegations that he personally downloaded and transferred the recordings.

Defense Preparation Prejudiced by Remand

The application further contends that keeping the young officer behind bars infringes upon his constitutional right to a fair trial and effective legal representation:

• Restricted Legal Access: The defense submits that custodial conditions at the prison severely restrict Greene’s ability to consult privately and confidentially with his legal counsel to mount an effective defense.
• Proportional Bail Conditions: Wade argues that Greene has strong community ties, an unblemished record of service, poses zero flight risk, and is prepared to submit to any reasonable reporting conditions, passport surrender, or recognizance terms set by the court.

The High Court is set to convene on November 10, 2026, to hear oral arguments on Greene’s bail application, preceding the parallel November 12 High Court proceedings involving co-accused Azruddin Mohamed.