Sharma’s case thrown out

The decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Geoffrey Henderson, not to charge Dr Keith Rowley with assault after a brawl in the tearoom of Parliament cannot be interfered with, said Justice Charmaine Pemberton yesterday. The judge made the pronouncement in her judgment dismissing an application by Chandresh Sharma to review the DPP’s decision. Sharma, United National Congress (UNC) Member of Parliament for Fyzabad, made no comment after yesterday’s decision, but his attorney Kamla Persad-Bissessar immediately indicated she would appeal the ruling.

Sharma had reported to police that Dr Rowley, the People’s National Movement (PNM) MP for Diego Martin West, had assaulted him in the tesroom of Parliament on September 15, 2004. The file was sent to the DPP, but Henderson opted not to charge Rowley. This action prompted Sharma to seek judicial review against the DPP. In her judgment, Pemberton said, “Having considered counsel’s argument and the evidence as presented, I must conclude that Mr Sharma has not satisfied me that the DPP’s decision ought to be reviewed. The application is therefore dismissed with costs to be paid by Mr Sharma to the DPP fit for senior and junior counsel.

“Further, I cannot allow this court to be drawn into areas of speculation. Decisions are made on fact, evidence adduced from facts and law, nothing else. That is all I propose to say on this. I therefore find that the DPP’s decision cannot be reviewed on this ground as well.” In his defence, the DPP said he took into consideration the fact that Sharma had referred the matter to the House Privileges Committee and that it would deal with this complaint accordingly. However, Sharma said he would suffer bias since the majority of the House of Representatives and the committee are made up of PNM members.

Justice Pemberton added, “I am sufficiently persuaded that the incident at bar can constitute a privilege and therefore can fall within the purview of a matter properly before Parliament through the House Committee for its deliberation. Having come to that conclusion therefore, I do find that it was indeed a relevant consideration to excite the DPP’s mind and one which he properly took into account in coming to his decision. The DPP’s decision therefore cannot be interfered with on this ground.”