Sharma: Appeal Court would know what to do in Naraynsingh case

I am a Judge of the High Court of Trinidad and Tobago. I was appointed on July 1, 2002. During the period July 31, 1998, to June 30, 2002, I was the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). The Honour-able Chief Justice was during that period a Justice of Appeal. During my tenure as DPP, I would have had to deal with literally, hundreds of documents. As a consequence, and without having refreshed my memory from any documents, relevant entry records of the DPP’s Office or Official Diaries to which I do not now have access, I can at present only speak in very general terms since I am unsure about specific dates and the exact contents of documents under reference.

Sometime in 2001, the Chief Justice, then a Justice of Appeal, called me to his Chambers and told me words to the effect that information had been given to him that attempts were being made, by police officers, to suborn witnesses to falsely implicate Dr Vijay Naraynsingh in the murder of his former wife, Dr Chandra Naraynsingh. He then asked me words to the effect, what steps could be taken with respect to the information he had received. I advised that the information be committed to written form and sent to my office, possibly by an attorney, so that there would be a written record of it in the DPP’s Office, and also so that enquiries could be made into the matter.

From my independent and unassisted recollection, I cannot now say for certain whether a letter was consequently sent to the DPP’s Office although my unassisted memory on the matter inclines me to believe that one was. I also cannot now say from my unassisted recollection whether an enquiry by the police was caused to be made by me, as a consequence of any letter sent. On Monday December 6, 2004 at about 9.30-10 am, the Chief Justice called for me to come to his Chambers at the Hall of Justice. I was then out of Court. He reminded me of the information relative to the Naraynsingh matter that he had passed on to me in 2001 and asked me whether a letter had consequently been sent to me when I was DPP. I told him that I had a “hazy recollection” that something had been sent, but that I could not say for sure.

I told the Chief Justice that my memory however more inclined me to the view that a letter had been sent. He told me that I had subsequently confirmed to him in 2001 that a letter had been sent to my department. Although at that time, December 6, 2004 I had no specific recollection of telling the Chief Justice this, I could not deny that I had confirmed as much to him at that point in time. The Chief Justice told me that he had seen the DPP earlier that morning and had informed him of the letter. The Chief Justice asked me to recall where the letter would have been filed. I told him that I could not say exactly but it would have had to be in a file relevant to either “Sean Parris” or to the “Chandra Naraynsingh Murder Investigation.” In my presence, the Chief Justice telephoned the DPP and advised him to check for the letter in the aforementioned files.

The Chief Justice went on to tell me, among other things, that he had met with the DPP earlier that morning, had told him about the letter and was due to meet with him again later that morning. He informed me that when the DPP returned, he would call for me to be present at the meeting since the issue of the letter had arisen during my tenure as DPP. I advised the Chief Justice to exercise caution in speaking with the DPP lest his motives be misinterpreted by the DPP. The Chief Justice then vigourously expressed the view to me that he was in possession of information which could expose a possible conspiracy to falsely implicate Dr Naraynsingh and that he was duty bound to bring it to the attention of the DPP. He said, words to the effect, that the fact that he was Chief Justice did not absolve him of such a responsibility.

I left that meeting with the Chief Justice and proceeded to Court. Very late in the morning, while I was in the process of selecting a jury, I received a message via my Secretary and Court Clerk that the Chief Justice had the DPP in his Chambers and he wished to see me urgently. I took a while to go to the meeting since I had to complete the process of selecting the Jury. Upon attending the meeting at around midday, I met the Chief Justice and the DPP in the Chief Justice’s Chambers. I indicated the reason that I had taken so much time to come to the meeting. The Chief Justice asked me, words to the effect, whether I remembered receiving correspondence, while I was DPP suggesting the existence of a conspiracy on the part of police officers to falsely implicate Dr Vijay Naraynsingh in the murder of his former wife. By way of introduction of the issue, I then made reference to the Chief Justice’s meeting with me in 2001. I said that I had a “hazy recollection” of a letter having been sent but my memory more inclined me to believe that something had been sent. I said that I was unable to remember the exact contents of any such letter and I explained as the reason for this, the voluminous documentation that had passed through my hands in my four years as DPP.

The DPP showed me a priority hand-over list which I had prepared for him on my demitting office as DPP and which contained a list of the important pending matters which required his urgent attention. On the list was the “Sean Parris” matter. The letter under reference was however not made mention of in that list. The DPP said further that he had caused his Assistant Secretary, “Shirla,” to search for the letter but that nothing had been found. I suggested to the DPP that efforts should be made to search the “Sean Parris” or “Chandra Naraynsingh Murder Investi-gation” files. The DPP replied that those files had already been searched on his instructions, but nothing had been found. The Chief Justice suggested that the DPP continue to search for the letter since I had informed him that one had been received by me.

I then stated that from my direct knowledge of the DPP’s office, it contained filed away, literally, thousands of letters and it would therefore probably take some time for a proper search to be conducted. The Chief Justice said the letter contained important information about a conspiracy to falsely implicate Dr Naraynsingh. He said that otherwise, there might well be a miscarriage of justice. The Chief Justice also said at this point, words to the effect, that these were all matters for the DPP to determine. He asked the DPP words to the effect, what he might be prepared to do when he found the letter, having heard from me that a letter had probably been sent to the Department. The DPP replied to the effect that he would have to find the letter first, examine and interpret its contents and then he would consider the matter.

The Chief Justice asked me to either at this meeting or the one with me alone earlier that day at 9.30 am (I cannot recall exactly, which) whether I would be prepared to give a statement to the effect that the letter had been sent to the DPP’s Office. I replied that I would not consider that without first having refreshed my memory from the letter and its contents and at that point in time, I only had a “hazy recollection” with regard to the letter. The Chief Justice told the DPP that in a matter such as this, he ought to perhaps consult with a Queen’s Counsel who was removed from the jurisdiction and who would look at the matter from a detached perspective. He suggested by way of example, Sir Timothy Cassel QC. This, the Chief Justice suggested, was in order to protect himself (the DPP) and words to the effect, in order to protect his back, should things subsequently go awry, for then he could always indicate that he had the advice of Queen’s Counsel in the matter.

The Chief Justice then reached for a bundle of white coloured papers to the right of his desk. He took up some of those papers and referred to a decision of Weekes J, as she then was, in upholding a No-Case Submission and he read aloud a criticism of the DPP’s Office for its failure to evaluate the evidence properly in that case. The Chief Justice said words to the effect that the DPP’s Office had to be careful about abdicating its responsibility and throwing issues before the Judiciary as triable issues for a jury to determine, when that might not always be the case. The Chief Justice said that when the Judiciary did its job, in cases of a prior failure to consider and evaluate the evidence properly or sufficiently, it often happened that the Judiciary got unfairly and unreasonably blamed. The Chief Justice went on to say words to the effect, that as the Head of the Judiciary, he had to ensure that the Judiciary did not get unfairly and unreasonably blamed for such things.

At one point in the meeting, probably at this juncture, I indicated that from my personal knowledge of the DPP he was a person of great personal integrity. The Chief Justice said that he was aware of that. The DPP replied that he knew that he was such a person. The Chief Justice also said at this meeting that accomplice evidence was necessary at times and that some accomplices would inevitably come from the underworld. He referred to the Court of Appeal decision in the “Tooks and Bulls” case where that point had been made by him and which had validated the use of the accomplice evidence in that case. The Chief Justice said that it was a question of providing the accomplice evidence direction to the jury and a question of whether the jury believed the evidence.

The Chief Justice then queried how after ten years, a witness in the Naraynsingh matter could suddenly come forward to give evidence and queried whether it was that the witness had suddenly found God. He went on to say that no reasonable Judge would allow such a matter to go before the Jury and, words to the effect, that if that happened, “We in the Court of Appeal” would know either (a) what to do about it or (b) how to handle it. The Chief Justice then asked me whether I would allow such a case to go to the jury. I replied that I did not know what the evidence in the case was. I also said that I might though, have concerns about the reported delay but that at the end of the day, I could not say because I did not know what all the evidence in the matter was. The Chief Justice also told the DPP in the meeting that he should consider prosecuting the matter himself. Shortly after that, the meeting ended. I told the DPP in the presence of the Chief Justice, to come and see me in my Chambers after the meeting. I left the meeting at that stage and went to my Chambers.

Very shortly thereafter the DPP came to my Chambers and we had a discussion about certain aspects of the meeting with the Chief Justice. I disassociated myself from some of the Chief Justice’s comments at that meeting with which I had been uncomfortable. I told the DPP as much. I also told the DPP how I had come to be called to the meeting that morning. We went on to discuss a few matters pertaining to the Naraynsingh matter. The DPP and I thereafter had about three of four telephone conversations relating primarily to the issue of the 2001 letter. Connected issues were also discussed during those telephone conversations.

MARK MOHAMMED
Judge