‘Disclosure’ appeal in Privy Council Nov 5

THE Judicial Committee of the Privy Council will on November 5, hear an application by the defendants in the Piarco Airport fraud case, in which they are seeking an order for “full disclosure” before the preliminary inquiry can begin.

Yesterday, Frank Solomon SC, appearing for the defence, told Chief Magistrate Sherman Mc Nicolls that the matter was fixed in the Privy Council and asked that the cases against the eight defendants and three companies be put off to a later date. Mc Nicolls, presiding in the Port-of-Spain Fourth Magis-trates’ Court, adjourned the cases to November 19 for mention. Appearing in court yesterday were former Government Ministers Brian Kuei Tung and Russell Huggins; Ishwar Galbaransingh, CEO of Northern Construction Limited (NCL); Amrith Maharaj, Financial Comptroller of NCL; John Henry Smith, CEO, of Maritime General Insurance Company, businesswoman Renee Pierre, secretary Barbara Gomes, and insurance executive Steve Fergusson.

The eight defendants, together with Fidelity Finance and Leasing Company, Maritime General Insurance Company, and NCL, are charged with conspiring to defraud the Airports Authority of more than $19 million, proceeds of the construction of the new $1.6 billion Piarco Airport Terminal building. When the case was called yesterday, deputy Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Carla Brown-Antoine apologised for the absence of lead prosecutor, Karl Hudson-Phillips QC. She also informed the court that two other prosecuting attorneys — Gilbert Peterson and Roy Holford — were out of the country. Brown-Antoine said that the appeal was listed in the Privy Council and asked for a later date for the inquiry to be called.

On January 29, the Chief Magistrate agreed to the defence’s application for the State to make a list of all documents and material they intend to use in the Piarco Airport case. Mc Nicolls ordered that the DPP provide to all accused and to the court “a comprehensive list of all the documentation and other material of a similar nature which is or has been in its (State) possession which relates to the inquiry.” He said the State should indicate the items they have already disclosed and to which of the defendants the charges were related. He pointed out that the prosecution should indicate on the list which items it refuses to disclose and the reasons for the refusal. Mc Nicolls said the reason for the order was “to simply assist this court in determining this issue and this order in no way preempts the application made (for disclosure).” The State appealed and on July 21, the Court of Appeal reversed Mc Nicolls’ ruling.  The Court of Appeal comprising Chief Justice Sat Sharma, Justice Rolston Nelson and Justice Stanley John, said Mc Nicolls had exceeded his function when he ordered the prosecution to provide the accused with the list of documentation.