‘Jagdeo Singh never bribed anyone’

English Queen’s Counsel Edward Fitzgerald, leading James Edward Oury, appeared for the jailed Trinidad attorney, while Peter Knox and John Almeida represented the State. The appeal is being heard before the Board comprising Lords Bingham, Rodger, Brown, Lady Hale, and Sir Swinton-Thomas. The appeal will conclude today.

Singh is appealing against the decision of the TT Court of Appeal dated November 15, 2002, dismissing his appeal against the conviction and sentence of seven years. Singh was jailed by Justice Stanley John in the Port-of-Spain High Court on November 29, 2001.

Singh was found guilty on two of the three counts:

1) Between October 1 and December 3, 1999, he corruptly solicited for himself the sum of $40,000 from Shirley Basdeo as an inducement to Magistrate Deborah Thomas-Felix to grant bail to Rudolph John, and as an inducement to police prosecutor, Sgt Claudette Bynoe to forbear to object to the granting of bail to John, contrary to Section 3 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act number 11 of 1987.

2) On December 2, 1999, he corruptly received for himself the sum of $40,000 from Basdeo and Woman Police Constable Lystra Bridgelal as an inducement, contrary to Section 3 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act number 11 of 1987.

Singh’s attorneys are relying on two grounds to succeed.

Fitzgerald said that the State rightly conceded at the appeal hearing, and the Court of Appeal rightly held, that the judge’s directions were defective in that the judge failed to give a direction that Singh’s good character must be taken into account on the crucial issue of credibility.

He contended that the State sought to assert at the special leave hearing on October 2, 2003, that there was nothing wrong with the directions.

He submitted that this assertion was untenable on the part of the State and that it was inappropriate for them to re-open this issue at this stage of the proceedings.

Fitzgerald also argued that the Court of Appeal was wrong to apply the proviso for two reasons:

(1) Firstly, as a matter of principle, a failure to direct the jury on the importance of good character in respect of credibility represents a serious failure in any case where credibility is the issue. This, he added, restricts the discretion to uphold the conviction by application of the proviso to extreme and exceptional cases.

(2) Secondly, on the facts, the Court of Appeal’s analysis was flawed and the whole approach of reconstructing what the jury must have found was in conflict with the correct approach laid down by the House of Lords in 2002.

Fitzgerald said it appeared that the court reached its conclusions without any reference to the notes of evidence which were not before them. Fitzgerald also submitted that the Court of Appeal erred in its construction of Section 3 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. According to the written submissions of the English QC, "It was common ground between the State and the appellant, that the appellant never suggested or offered a bribe to the magistrate and/or the prosecutor. Indeed, it is the appellant’s case that it was conceded by the State at the trial that he never had any intention to offer a bribe to either of them."

Fitzgerald said the trial judge and the Court of Appeal relied on English and Welsh authorities to hold that "corruptly" means doing an act which the law forbids, in this case soliciting and receiving money from Basdeo, having induced her to believe that, in doing so, she would be entering into a corrupt arrangement with the magistrate and the prosecutor.

According to Fitzgerald, the intention of the TT Parliament was to deter persons from bribing or attempting to bribe the agents of the State.

In this case, Queen’s Counsel pointed out that there was never any intention by Singh to bribe anyone.