Opposition to get crime bill amendments; Ramesh wants one clause dropped

Government House Leader Colm Imbert promised Wednesday to provide opposition MPs details of the Evidence (Amendment) bill Thursday.

Imbert led a team that met Wednesday with the opposition. The Government team included Attorney General John Jeremie, National Security Minister Martin Joseph and Minister in the Ministry of National Security Donna Cox.

The opposition side comprised Chief Whip Dr Hamza Rafeeq, Kamla Persad-Bissessar, Subhas Panday and Dr Tim Gopeesingh.

The meeting covered concerns raised in the Parliament by Opposition Leader Basdeo Panday and Persad-Bissessar on Friday regarding the use of audio and video recording as evidence in criminal court cases.

The government has asked for opposition support to pass the bill, although it does not need additional votes since its own strength in the House is adequate, even if Diego Martin West MP Keith Rowley doesn't support it.

Despite his open fight with prime minister Patrick Manning, Rowley remains a member of the governing party and has told local media he will support the bill.

Commenting on Wednesday's meeting Persad-Bissessar told reporters the government team did not provide any proposals.

"They were listening to our concerns and based on those concerns they are going to draft things now to try and take on board the proposals, which is what they are going to share with us later tomorrow and on Friday morning," she said.

The House of Representatives continues debate on the bill Friday.

In a related development, opposition MP Ramesh L. Maharaj has written to the attorney general telling John Jeremie to delete Clause 6 (a) (iii) (f) and 6 (c) from the bill.

The section will allow statements of witnesses who claim to be fearful to give evidence to be admissible in evidence subject to the discretion of the Court.

In a letter to Jeremie explaining that he would not attend the debate due to prior international commitments, the former attorney general said, "Witnesses are likely to claim that they are fearful in order to seek the benefit of not giving evidence."

He added that "convictions based on the evidence of a witness who did not give evidence and is not subject to cross examination are not likely to be upheld in the Appeal processes as being safe convictions."

Maharaj said, "This measure strikes at the root of due process of law for an accused person to be able to challenge the evidence adduced against him by cross examination of the witness. There is also a risk that a Court may find that such a provision is not reasonably justifiable in a society which has proper respect for the rights of individuals.

"Convictions obtained with the use of this provision may end up being quashed," he said.