The proclamation was published in the official Gazette on August 30. The Act, which replaces the Preliminary Enquiry Act, ends preliminary enquiries for matters filed indictably.
The bill needed a special majority to pass and won the support of the opposition People's National Movement (PNM) in Parliament. During the debate PNM MP Colm Imbert boasted that the bill was first brought to Parliament by the PNM in 2009.
The Guardian newspaper published an extensive story Sunday giving details of the act and singling out the Piarco Airport cases involving businesspeople and state officials connected with the construction of the airport and politicians who served in the 1995-2000 UNC administration, including former Prime Minister Basdeo Panday and former cabinet ministers Brian Kuei-Tung, Sadiq Baksh and Carlos John.
The bill needed a special majority to pass and won the support of the opposition People's National Movement (PNM) in Parliament. During the debate PNM MP Colm Imbert boasted that the bill was first brought to Parliament by the PNM in 2009.
The Guardian newspaper published an extensive story Sunday giving details of the act and singling out the Piarco Airport cases involving businesspeople and state officials connected with the construction of the airport and politicians who served in the 1995-2000 UNC administration, including former Prime Minister Basdeo Panday and former cabinet ministers Brian Kuei-Tung, Sadiq Baksh and Carlos John.
They are among several other people who will benefit from the new act, which states in Section 34(2):
"On an application by the accused, a Judge shall discharge an accused if the proceedings were instituted prior to the coming into force of this Act and the trial has not commenced within seven years after the proceedings were instituted, except (a) in the case of matters listed in Schedule 6; or (b) where the accused has evaded the process of the Court and the trial on indictment has, for that reason, not commenced."
Two of the more high profile cases connected with the airport are those of businessmen Ishwar Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson, both of whom have in the past made financial contributions the two major political parties - the UNC and the PNM.
Both men were supposed to be extradited to the United States to face dozens of corruption charges there. Attorney General Anand Ramlogan signed their extradition orders as far back as 2010. However they contested the orders and eventually won.
On November 6, last year, Justice Ronnie Boodoosingh ruled that the businessmen should not be extradited to the United States. He stated that any move to have Galbaransingh and Ferguson extradited would be “unjust, oppressive and unlawful.”
On November 6, last year, Justice Ronnie Boodoosingh ruled that the businessmen should not be extradited to the United States. He stated that any move to have Galbaransingh and Ferguson extradited would be “unjust, oppressive and unlawful.”
 |
| Ish Galbaransing (left) and Steve Ferguson |
The High Court judge said Trinidad & Tobago is the correct forum to try the businessmen based on legal submissions that the investigation started locally in 2000. It is alleged that the offences were committed in several other jurisdictions, including the U.S. and the Bahamas, between September 1 and December 31 2005.
Jutsice Minister Herbert Volney told the Guardian they are not the only ones to benefit, noting that all persons with charges over ten years would be treated the same under the law. It is not "personal to anyone", he said.
 |
| Herbert Volney |
"Anyone who endures charges over 10 years will benefit with the exclusion of those who committed blood crimes,” Volney explained. He said due to the lengthy delays the State must take the blame for delays in getting its house in order for several matters, including the Piarco preliminary inquiry.
“At the end of the day, the State has a duty to prosecute people in reasonable time. The Privy Council gave a five year time-frame for convicted killers to have their matters dealt with," he said. "This is ten years we are talking about."
“At the end of the day, the State has a duty to prosecute people in reasonable time. The Privy Council gave a five year time-frame for convicted killers to have their matters dealt with," he said. "This is ten years we are talking about."
Volney told the paper the State's limited resources is not a valid excuse for lengthy adjournments, which are affected as well by “the hiring of foreign counsel who are only available two to three times a year.”
The minister said it is irrelevant that the accused were the ones causing the delay in the start of their cases since the State has a responsibility to ensure matters are heard in a timely basis.
According to the act, indictable matters will now go to a Master of the High Court by way of paper committal, where all the evidence and supporting documents will be filed in the Registry of the Supreme Court.
The minister said it is irrelevant that the accused were the ones causing the delay in the start of their cases since the State has a responsibility to ensure matters are heard in a timely basis.
According to the act, indictable matters will now go to a Master of the High Court by way of paper committal, where all the evidence and supporting documents will be filed in the Registry of the Supreme Court.
Section 34 of the Act, which addresses “discharge on the grounds of delay,” states:
“(1) Where proceedings are instituted on or after the coming into force of this Act and the Master is not, within twelve months after the proceedings are instituted, in a position to order that the accused be put on trial, the Master shall discharge the accused and a verdict of not guilty shall be recorded, except
a) in the case of matters listed in Schedule 6; or
(b) where the accused has evaded the process of the Court
“After the expiration of ten years from the date on which an offence is alleged to have been committed
(c) no proceedings shall be instituted for that offence; or
(d) no trial shall commence in respect of that offence except,
(a) in the case of matters listed in Schedule 6;
or (b) where the accused has evaded the process of the Court,
where—(c) proceedings have been instituted;
(d) an accused is committed to stand trial; or
(e) an order is made to put an accused on trial, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, a judge shall, on an application by the accused, discharge the accused and record a verdict of not guilty if the offence is alleged to have been committed on a date that is ten years or more before the date of the application.”
a) in the case of matters listed in Schedule 6; or
(b) where the accused has evaded the process of the Court
“After the expiration of ten years from the date on which an offence is alleged to have been committed
(c) no proceedings shall be instituted for that offence; or
(d) no trial shall commence in respect of that offence except,
(a) in the case of matters listed in Schedule 6;
or (b) where the accused has evaded the process of the Court,
where—(c) proceedings have been instituted;
(d) an accused is committed to stand trial; or
(e) an order is made to put an accused on trial, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, a judge shall, on an application by the accused, discharge the accused and record a verdict of not guilty if the offence is alleged to have been committed on a date that is ten years or more before the date of the application.”
No comments:
Post a Comment