Allum condemns CLICO raid

SENIOR COUNSEL Desmond Allum yesterday complained to the court about the police raid on the business premises and home of CLICO Chair-man Lawrence Duprey last Friday.

Before Chief Magistrate Sherman Mc Nicolls could render his verdict in the integrity case against former prime minister Basdeo Panday, Allum — one of the attorneys representing Panday — said the raid was intended to prejudice the fair hearing of the pending matter and to undermine Duprey’s character and credibility as a witness for Panday during the integrity trial.

Allum also wrote a letter to Director of Public Prosecutions Geoffrey Henderson asking that he launch an immediate investigation into the matter and determine whether those responsible for the raid on Duprey be committed to the High Court for contempt.

The following is the statement issued by Allum in court yesterday, and the letter sent to the DPP.

ACP Virgil vs Basdeo Panday

Contempt of Court

1. On or about the March 24-25, 2006 during the course of the proceedings in this matter the defence called as a witness Mr Lawrence Duprey to explain a payment made into the account which formed the subject matter of this trial.

2. The importance of Mr Duprey’s evidence was that it sought to explain the means by which certain monies were deposited into an account with the defendants name and in particular that the transaction was in no way improper.

3. Having given evidence the witness was relieved and the trial concluded with the learned magistrate reserving his decision until April 24 2006.

4. On April 21 2006 just two days before the court was scheduled to convene to deliver its verdict police officers from the Anti Corruption Bureau under Acting ASP Joseph Edwards executed warrants on the business and residential premises of Mr Duprey.

5. That is passing strange that despite the only persons being privy to the intended execution of the warrants would have been the members of the ACIB, the media arrives at the business premises of the witness at about the same time the police arrive to execute the warrants.

6. That upon completion of the execution of the warrant head of the ACIB acting ASP Joseph Edwards proceeds to make a public statement to the media which is then carried on all the major print and electronic media and is published repeatedly on both in the newspapers and television over the weekend.

7. Among the statements recorded both in the print and electronic media as being attributed to ASP Joseph who is described by the Express as having emerged from Clico’s building at about 5.40 pm and told members of the media who had gathered outside the building since noon:

a. That the searches were related to Duprey’s testimony in the recent trial of Opposition Leader Basdeo Panday.

b. Edwards said the police search was geared toward “trying to get information to substantiate” what Duprey said or “negate” what he said.

8. According to the Newsday, Edwards said officers seized some documents during their searches and these will be examined over the weekend by the Bob Lindquist Forensic Accounting team.

9. It is submitted that the act of obtaining and executing warrants against a witness in the pending proceedings at the time in which it was done a mere three days prior to a date in which the Magistrate is to make his findings which would include his determination of how he deals with the issue of credibility and in particular which evidence he accepts and rejects.

10. To execute a warrant and to suggest that inferentially that the witness’ evidence is the subject matter of police investigations and that it may be illegal in any way or form is to seek to undermine the credibility of the witness and in so doing bring the administration of justice into disrepute and amount to a contempt of Court.

11. According to Archbold 2004 para 28-34 under the Rubric “Common Law”

At common law, a contempt of court is an act or omission calculated to interfere with the due administration of justice. Att Gen v Butterworth (1963) 1 QB 696; The St James’s Evening Post, 2 Ark 469 at 471; Bahama Islands, re a special reference from (1893) AC 138.

Conduct is calculated to prejudice the due administration of justice if there is a real risk as opposed to a remote possibility that prejudice will result: Att Gen v Times Newspapers Ltd (text) (1974) AC 273,HL.

In the latter case, Lord Diplock outlined the various ways in which the due administration of justice be prejudiced.

“The due administration of justice requires first that all citizens should have unhindered access to the constitutionally established courts of criminal or civil jurisdiction for the determination of disputes as to their legal rights and liabilities; secondly, that they should be able to rely upon obtaining in the courts the arbitrament of a tribunal which is free from bias against any party and whose decision will be based upon those facts only that have been proved in evidence adduced before it in accordance with the procedure adopted in courts of law; and thirdly that, once the dispute has been submitted to a court of law, they should be able to rely upon there being no usurpation by any other person of the function of that court to decide it according to law.

Conduct which is calculated to prejudice any of these requirements or to undermine the public confidence that they will be observed is a contempt of court” (at p 309).

12. It is well accepted that two categories which are capable of amounting to Contempt of court at Common Law include (1) Interference with persons concerned in litigation and (2) where there is a Publication of matter calculated to prejudice the fair trial of a pending case.

13. As regards interference with persons concerned in litigation the case of Moore v Clerk of Assize, Bristol 1971 1 WLR establishes that where the witness has completed her testimony any attempt to intimidate outside of court was sufficient to constitute contempt.

14. It is contempt to publish statements which prejudice an issue in a pending cause:

Att Gen v Times Newspapers Ltd (1974) AC 273, HL. It is submitted that:-

a. The timing of the executing of the search warrants at the business and residential premises of Mr Duprey in the circumstances where the police were aware that the magistrate was scheduled to render his verdict in the matter on Monday April 24 as well as the fact that

b. Head of the ACIB, Acting Superintendent Joseph Edwards, emerged from Clico’s building around 5.40 pm and told members of the media who had gathered outside the building since noon

i. that the searches were related to Duprey’s testimony in the recent trial of Opposition Leader Basdeo Panday.

ii. Edwards said the police search was geared toward “trying to get information to substantiate” what Duprey said of “negate” what he said.

c. These factors when taken together were calculated to prejudice the fair hearing of the pending matter and to undermine the character and credibility of the witness in these proceedings.

15. Accordingly since it is trite law that a magistrate does not have an inherent jurisdiction to deal with the question of common law contempt, the court is invited to

a. Make a clear and unequivocal statement as to its concern as to the matter and timing in which these warrants have been executed and

b. To call upon the Director of Public Prosecutions in his capacity as having the responsibility of overseeing that the administration of justice is not brought into disrepute to launch an immediate investigation into the matter and determine whether he should seek the committal of those involved to the High Court for Contempt of Proceedings

Rajiv Persad

Junior Counsel to

Allan Neuman QC

Allan Alexander SC

& Desmond Allum SC

Fyard Hosein SC