http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/DPP-letter-blocks-trial-delay-293307541.htmlDPP letter blocks trial delay
Lawyers for accused in repeal of Section 34 seek Privy Council hearing around May 2016
By By Denyse Renne denyse.renne@trinidadexpress.com
Story Created: Feb 21, 2015 at 9:12 PM ECT
Story Updated: Feb 21, 2015 at 9:12 PM ECT
Attorneys seeking the interest of businessmen Ameer Edoo and Steve Ferguson over the repeal of Section 34 at the Privy Council have asked for the hearing to take place no sooner than May 2016.
But this request was thwarted, following the intervention of Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Roger Gaspard SC, in a letter to the registrar of the Privy Council.Information received by the Sunday Express stated the request for deferring the appeal was made by attorneys for Ferguson and Edoo, and
agreed to by attorneys retained by the Office of the Attorney General (AG).
At the time, Anand Ramlogan was then AG.
The State’s legal representatives are Lord David Pannick QC and Alan Newman QC while Edward Fitzgerald QC is seeking the interest of the businessmen.
In his letter to the registrar, Gaspard, who is appearing as an interested party in the proceedings, stated he was not in favour of the appeal being “unduly delayed”.
He also pointed out attorneys seeking the interest of the State never informed his legal representatives of the May 2016 date.Contacted yesterday evening, Gaspard would only confirm he wrote the registrar of the Privy Council.
Following Gaspard’s letter, sources say the May 2016 date was quashed and the appeal will now be heard on October 20.
When the Sunday Express contacted Gaspard yesterday afternoon, he confirmed he had written to the Privy Council.
The Sunday Express contacted Registrar of the Privy Council Louise Di Mambro on Thursday morning, and she confirmed “there was some legal wrangling regarding a date for the hearing being heard on or about May 2016”.
“There was some controversy about it being listed in 2016 and, now, it’s all settled for October 2015,” Di Mambro said.
Di Mambro said the appeal for the businessmen and businesses was lodged on January 12, 2015.
Ferguson, along with Edoo and Maritime Life (Caribbean) Ltd
(Maritime General Insurance Company Ltd and Fidelity Finance and Leasing Company Ltd), were chosen as test cases, following the repeal of Section 34.
Section 34 of the Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act 2011 sought to abolish preliminary enquiries for serious criminal matters in specific categories and stated if cases had not been started within ten years of the date an offence had been committed, the accused could apply to have the matter dismissed.
Following the public outcry, several of the accused who sought to benefit from Section 34 filed constitutional motions after the legislation was repealed on September 12, 2012.
Shortly after, Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar fired former justice minister Herbert Volney over Section 34. Persad-Bissessar at the time said Volney had misled the Cabinet.
When the controversial section was proclaimed on August 31, 2012, 42 applicants filed motions to have their criminal cases dismissed.
They included, former prime minister Basdeo Panday; his wife, Oma; Ferguson; Edoo; businessman Ishwar Galbaransingh; former United National Congress (UNC) ministers Brian Kuei Tung, Russell Huggins, Carlos John; and others.
Both Ferguson and Galbaransingh are facing a series of money laundering and fraud charges in the United States, as well as charges of corruption relating to the construction of the Piarco International Airport.
In 2011, Ramlogan had decided against extraditing Ferguson and Galbaransingh since according to him, all avenues for legal redress were not yet exhausted and the men still had constitutional rights.
Ramlogan said his decision was based on advice given by James Lewis QC.
Lewis, in his advice, stated he was assured Ferguson and Galbaransingh will face a speedy trial in T&T.
In his legal opinion dated December 17, 2011, Lewis said, “On the other hand, I am informed the claimants can be tried in Trinidad and Tobago almost immediately on the same conduct,” Lewis said.
The outcome of the court matters in T&T, as well as the Privy Council, hinges on when the US can re-request their extradition.
In an immediate response to questions posed by the Sunday Express on Wednesday, regarding the request by the men’s attorneys, public affairs specialist in the Justice Department in Washington DC, USA, Peter Carr said: “As a matter of policy, we generally do not comment on extradition matters unless and until a defendant appears in the US.”
When the Sunday Express contacted Ramlogan yesterday afternoon and asked for his reasons against not
applying to the Privy Council for an earlier hearing and why he agreed to
the May 2016 hearing, given the public interest over Section 34, he said, “I think you should refer all questions
concerning matters of the State to the current Attorney General”.
The Sunday Express pointed out to Ramlogan he was the substantive attorney general at the time, but the call disconnected.
Several efforts to contact Ramlogan again were unsuccessful.
This is not the first incident of the Office of the AG and the Office of the DPP clashing.
On June 4 last year, Fitzgerald, at the Court of Appeal hearing, told the court the AG (Ramlogan) had given the undertaking should the Court of Appeal rule against the trio, then the State would not object to conditional leave being granted.
This means the State will not object to there being a stay of criminal proceedings before Magistrate Ejenny Espinet and the Section 34 application in the High Court until the Privy Council delivers its ruling.
Attorney Ian Benjamin, who
sought the interest of the DPP had told
the court Gaspard would not be adop-
ting such a position as the State’s.
Benjamin had told the court: “The DPP does not think it is appropriate to consent to stay the committal proceedings. He (DPP) did indicate there has been significant progress made at the Magistrates’ Court and he wants to progress with those proceedings”.
Gaspard had entered the proceedings as an interested party.
After hearing the parties involved, the panel ruled in favour of the trio.
PM congratulated
speedy hearing
On April 6, 2013, Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar issued a statement following Dean-Armorer’s ruling on Section 34.
In the statement, the PM claimed she was pleased for the State’s his-
toric legal victory in this unprecedented constitutional case. “The ruling comprehensively dismissed the various grounds of challenge to the repeal of Section 34.
“As noted by the court, the Government moved swiftly to repeal Section 34 and drafted the repeal in a
manner that nullified any legitimate expectations and retroactively cleared
the way for the defendants to be tried.”
The PM had also said, “I was particularly pleased with the expeditious manner in which this case was heard and determined as it was obviously in the public interest to have this matter dealt with very quickly.”
About the case
When the lawsuits were initially brought before High Court Judge Mira Dean-Armorer, it was agreed during a preliminary hearing the trio’s lawsuits (Ferguson, Edoo and Maritime) would be used as a test case, which would decide the fate of the other applicants. Dean-
Armorer, in judgment delivered in April, 2013, dismissed all the grounds raised by the applicants, paving the way for the appeal.
On June 4, 2014, the Appeal Court upheld Dean-Armorer’s ruling.
The appeal panel—Judges Allan Mendonca, Peter Jamadar and
Gregory Smith, in a 57-page ruling, dismissed the grounds raised by the businessmen and companies challenging the repeal of Section 34 of the Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act 2011.