A report in the Sunday Express says new Trinidad and Tobago Attorney General, John Jeremie, tried to push former Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Geoffrey Henderson to charge Opposition Leader Basdeo Panday and businessman Lawrence Duprey, chairman of CL financial. It happened in 2006 when Jeremie was the attorney general. The paper said Henderson refused and accused Jeremie of attempting to interfere with the integrity and transparency of the criminal justice system.
The paper said it has obtained correspondence to support the allegations against Jeremie, who returned to the cabinet as Attorney General (AG) last Friday following the resignation of Brigid Annisette-George.
Annisette-George has only said that she quit for personal matter but Prime Minister patrick Manning told Parliament last week that she left because of a perceived conflict of interest in her dealings with the CL Financial matter. Opposition Leader Basdeo Panday has accused Manning of kicking out Annisette-George because she might have refused to do some of his bidding.
It quoted from what it said is a letter from Jeremie to Henderson dated November 3, 2006 in which he states: "I remind you that the State has expended considerable sums on both the Proman and Desalcott matters.
"In respect of the latter I close by pointing out to you that the additional charge suggested by Peter Thornton, QC several months ago has not been laid. This too is an untenable state of affairs bearing in mind recent events in which it is alleged that a certain prominent judicial officer is said to have deprecated a particular charge of a prominent person in public life on the basis that the charge was laid at a time when elections were in the air."
The Express said Henderson replied on November 9, 2006 telling Jeremie that criminal investigations should be allowed to continue along the usual process.
It said on the specific matter of not instituting criminal proceedings against Panday and Duprey, Henderson acknowledged that he did not reply "to your letter dated April 28, 2006. Your letter to me contained advice provided to you by an eminent Senior Counsel. This advice was unsolicited."
Henderson noted: "That advice recommended that criminal charges be laid against Mr Basdeo Panday and Mr Lawrence Duprey. At that time I was not satisfied that charges could properly be laid. This view was also held by Sir Timothy Cassel, QC who led the prosecution in the Panday trial, the matter in which Duprey gave evidence for the defense."
According to the paper, Henderson told Jeremie said he was not prepared to discuss the investigation, which was incomplete and therefore charges could not be laid. The Express said the DPP told the AG he was not insensitive to the fact that the State had spent considerable sums on the investigation.
"That is not the test to be applied in considering whether or not to institute criminal proceedings against a person suspected of committing an offence.
"In this regard, and with specific reference to your letters of April 28, 2006 and August 25, 2006, I would be failing in my independent duty under the constitution if I were to initiate a charge under your direction where the investigations are incomplete."
Henderson also addressed the matter of the prosecution of persons allegedly involved in bid rigging related to the Desalcott probe. The Express said he wrote: "Mr Thornton QC is advising on the amendments himself. Mr Thornton QC has promised to supply any amendments and/or further charges when he returns to Trinidad in time for his court appearance."
The report said Jeremie responded on November 27, 2006, telling the DPP that it was his "understanding" that British QCs, Thornton and Cassel had given the "go ahead" in the respective matters.
"In the case of Sir Timothy this was done in my presence close to a fortnight ago. In spite of that absolutely no progress has been made. Perhaps it is time for less talk and greater action in defence of the public interest.
"I should remind you in this regard that you have been at the helm of your department for over four years. It does not lie within your mouth in my view to lay criticism against the criminal justice system in circumstances in which Sharma C.J. has pointed to the deficiency in terms of skills against experienced defence counsel."
The paper quoted the DPP's response dated December 11, 2006, noting that it was his duty to uphold the law and to enforce it fairly, without malice and/or fear.
"In deciding to initiate charges against any citizen of this country, I shall be guided by the law and the facts which persuade me that there is a proper basis upon which to prosecute...In so doing, I rely on my own judgment, and may take advice from my legal officers or from members of the private bar whose opinions I may solicit from time to time.
"I am not subject to your directions. Your continued efforts to have me initiate charges against certain persons are highly improper and should they continue, can imperil the successful prosecution of any charge initiated in the matters under investigation."
The Express said in the continuing exchange of correspondence the DPP said the investigations to which the Jeremie referred concerned "persons who are associated in one way or another with a political party in opposition to the party in government. It is therefore even more imperative that any decision to prosecute is not only independent but must seen to be."
He cited the decision of the Privy Council, in the case of former Chief Justice Satnarine Sharma vs. Carla Brown Antoine, citing Lord Bingham at paragraph 14 (2):
"It is the duty of police officers and prosecutors engaged in the investigation of alleged offences and the initiation of prosecutions to exercise an independent, objective, professional judgment on the facts of each case.
"It not infrequently happens that there is strong political and public feeling that a particular suspect or class of suspect should be prosecuted and convicted.
"Those suspected of terrorism, hijacking or child abuse are obvious examples.
"This is inevitable, and not in itself harmful so long as those professionally charged with the investigation of offences and the institution of prosecutions do not allow their awareness of political and public opinion to sway their professional judgment.
"It is a grave violation of their professional and legal duty to allow their judgment to be swayed by extraneous considerations such as political pressure."
The Express said Henderson stood his ground and told Jeremie that he considered his actions "imprudent and improper."
It quoted Henderson as writing: "Any decision to prosecute in these matters is mine alone and I shall do so only when I am persuaded (as I have not yet been) that there is a sufficient basis upon which a jury properly directed can convict."
Henderson continued: "The reasons for my continued reticence at this stage (that is, at the time of writing) at initiating charges are evidential and until I am satisfied upon completion of the investigation and a full review of the file and the evidence contained therein, I shall not initiate charges.
"As to your assertion that Sir Timothy had expressed a view to proceed with charges on these matters, he has expressed no such view to me orally or in writing (his written opinion is to the contrary). To the extent that you are referring to a meeting in your chambers with Sir Timothy on 10th November, 2006 at which I was present, he expressed no such view. With respect to the purported opinion of Peter Thornton, that is a matter for my consideration only."
Source: Sunday Express
No comments:
Post a Comment