Lawyers battle over ‘infected warrant’

CHIEF Magistrate Sherman McNicolls’ jurisdiction to exclude a document from being tendered into evidence  yesterday became a serious point of contention between lead prosecutor Karl Hudson-Phillips QC and several defence attorneys. The arguments arose following objections by the defence team to an attempt by Hudson-Phillips to admit a warrant into evidence. The prosecutor was examining State witness Assistant Supt Wayne Boyd of the Anti Corruption Investiga-tions Bureau. Boyd was asked to leave the courtroom while the arguments were presented. The warrant, one of two, was issued on the application of Snr Supt Maurice Piggott during investigations into allegations of corruption relating to the new terminal development project at Piarco International Airport.

Stemming from those investigations, a total of 21 charges were laid against former government ministers Brian Kuei Tung and Russell Huggins; businesswoman Renee Pierre; CEO of Northern Construction Ltd (NCL) Ishwar Galbaransingh; financial comptroller of NCL Amrith Maharaj; CEO of Maritime General Insurance Company John Henry Smith; chairman of Maritime Group of companies Steve Ferguson and company secretary, Barbara Gomes. The inquiry is being heard at the Port-of-Spain Magistrates’ Court. According to defence attorney Frank Solomon SC, the controversial warrant did not bear the name of the company from which several documents had been seized following a search of the premises. As a result, Solomon argued, the search was illegal and the warrant, along with the documents that had been removed from the premises, should be excluded from the evidence.

In support of Solomon’s argument, his colleague Reginald Armour SC cited the July 31, 2002  judgment made by Justice Jamadar in the case of NCL versus the Attorney General. The case, he said, was of a similar nature and could be used as a precedent for McNicolls to make a ruling of exclusion. He said Section 33: sub sections 3 and 4 of the Proceeds of Crime Act under which the documents had been seized, had been declared unconstitutional by Jamadar’s ruling because the documents had been “unconstitutionally and illegally obtained.” The warrant, Armour said, had been “infected” and “infects all documents purportedly seized under that warrant.”

“The search and fruit of the search must, therefore, be viewed critically under Jamadar’s ruling,” he added. Hudson-Phillips agreed that “Justice Jamadar was right,” but insisted that the ruling was made in reference to a trial and not an inquiry. Citing several case studies of his own, Hudson-Phillips concluded, “In my view, it is not the matter but the jurisdiction.” This view, however, did not sit well with attorney Vernon De Lima. “The prosecutor’s implication that your Worship has no jurisdiction to exclude the admissibility of this document from evidence is an insult to the court,” he exclaimed. McNicolls, who said he needed time to look at the authorities cited, will give his ruling when the matter is next heard on Monday.