What the Magistrate said on the Panday case

Former PM Basdeo Panday and his daughter, Mickela Panday, leave court Wednesday (Express Photo)

Murray’s ruling:

“In cases of false declarations made under the act, the Integrity Commission plays a ‘pre-prosecution’ role in that only after it has conducted its due process can it refer persons to the Director of Public Prosecutions. 

“For these purposes, the Integrity Commission is a critical part of the Executive which makes the decision to prosecute.

“The Integrity Commission failed to comply with the provisions of the act under which it is constituted when it did not advise the President to appoint a tribunal to enquire into Mr Panday’s declarations. 

“Mr Panday was not given an opportunity, to which he was entitled, to be heard by a properly constituted tribunal.

“The referral of Mr Panday’s declarations to the Director of Public Prosecutions was therefore ill conceived and it matters not that the Director of Public Prosecutions found there was sufficient evidence to lay the charges. 

“In the court’s view, failing to accord Mr Panday due process under the act amounts to misconduct on the part of the Integrity Commission.

“The misconduct by the Integrity Commission was very serious. The substance of these charges was the ‘fruit of the poison tree’ which was the product of the Integrity Commission’s misconduct. 

“Furthermore, without the product of the misconduct, these proceedings would not have arisen. 

“It is the court’s view that the misconduct of the Integrity Commission was so serious that it would undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system and bring it into disrepute."