Sharma tells Cassel

AS THE controversy swirls around Chief Justice Sat Sharma for the second time in a year, comes a statement from British Queen’s Counsel Sir Timothy Cassel about a chat he had with Sharma in the first class cabin of a BWIA flight over the Atlantic on January 5 this year. The talk, according to Cassel, was the forthcoming trial of Basdeo Panday under the Integrity in Public Life Act.

Cassel was the lead prosecutor in the trial of the former prime minister who was charged with three counts of knowingly failing to declare his London bank account to the Integrity Commission for the years 1997, 1998, and 1999.

In a statement dated May 11, 2006, Cassel said he was on his way to Trinidad from London on January 5 when he met Sharma on the same BWIA flight (901). Cassel was coming to deal with the Panday trial which was fixed for January 9 before Chief Magistrate Sherman Mc Nicolls in the Port-of-Spain Eighth Magistrates’ Court.

Sharma was returning to Trinidad after spending several days with his son in Ireland. Cassel claimed remembering two conversations he had with Sharma concerning the Panday case.

The first occurred on the BWIA flight on January 5. “We were sitting quite close to each other and struck up a conversation. The Chief Justice knew that I was travelling to Trinidad for the purposes of the Panday case, and my recollection is that the Chief Justice raised this case in passing saying that the case against Panday was not terribly strong because in a Hindu family the wife looked after the finances.”

Cassel continued, “my reply was to the effect that the Chief Justice should read my opening speech before commenting on the strength of the case.” (Cassel’s opening statement was made on the first day of the trial on March 20).

Mc Nicolls reserved his decision on March 27 after hearing all the evidence and said he would give his decision on April 24. Before returning to London after all the evidence was adduced, Cassel paid a courtesy call on Sharma at the Hall of Justice.

Again, the issue of the Panday trial was raised during which Cassel found the decision of the Chief Magistrate to take a month to give his ruling was too long.

Cassel’s admission of chatting with the Chief Justice on a flight from London was also contained in the statement submitted by Mc Nicolls to Prime Minister Patrick Manning dated May 5, 2006.

Mc Nicolls said some time before the start of the Panday trial, he met with Sharma at the Hall of Justice to discuss matters pertaining to the Magistracy and any other matter the CJ wished to raise. According to Mc Nicolls, this has been the practice to meet from time to time as required.

During that meeting, Mc Nicolls said the Chief Justice on his own volition, told him that he (Sharma) was on a flight from London with Cassel. He said Sharma told Cassel that it was the practice in Hindu families to have the wife take care of the finances of the home.

Mc Nicolls added in his statement, “I thought it was something unusual to say because I did not raise the Panday matter with him and he said it on his own accord. I paid no attention whatever to what the Chief Justice said but found it passing strange that the defendant (Panday) said the same thing in his defence and even called a witness (Hindu Pundit Parasram Rampersad) to testify in support of that bit of testimony.”

Mc Nicolls said that on March 28 (the day after he reserved judgment in the Panday case), he went to see Sharma. He said the Chief Justice said several things to him including that the charges against Panday were laid at a time when elections were in the air, there was a perception that the charges were politically motivated by the PNM, and that wives ran the finances in Hindu families.

Mc Nicolls continued, “he further went on to tell me that I should prepare a draft right away as soon as I returned to my office that day and that I should show him before I gave my decision. I formed the clear impression that what the Chief Justice was trying to do was to bring pressure upon my mind to influence me in giving my decision in a particular way.” He said he did not return to see the Chief Justice before he gave his decision.

Last week, the Chief Justice denied all the allegations made by Mc Nicolls. He said there was a political conspiracy aimed at getting him out of office. He insisted that he would not be bullied by the executive into resigning when there is absolutely no justification for doing so.

The next time Mc Nicolls heard from the Chief Justice was on April 28 — four days after he found Panday guilty and jailed him for two years. He told Sharma that he was unavailable because he was in the middle of the Piarco Airport case.

Mc Nicolls said Sharma insisted and told him to bring the Deborah Thomas-Felix file. He did go to the Chief Justice Chambers, but said he avoided any confrontation in Sharma’s office. During that meeting, he said Sharma asked him if he had purchased land at Millennium Park to which Mc Nicolls replied yes.

The Chief Magistrate said he felt sorry for Sharma, because they had a good cordial relationship, having known each other for the past 22 years.

Mc Nicolls said no one has ever tried to influence him before in any case. He also claimed remembering Sharma telling him to instruct the magistrate to start the Dr Vijay Naraynsingh preliminary inquiry quickly.

But the Chief Magistrate said he could issue no such instructions, because he did not know what matters were before the magistrate.

Sharma left last night to attend a judicial conference in the Czech Republic starting on May 17. He returns to Trinidad on May 22.