No Privy Council for Panday

However, Panday could still petition the law lords directly, but legal sources said such a move is most unlikely since chances are that the law lords may not grant leave.

In refusing leave, Chief Justice Satnarine Sharma noted that in Panday’s motion, which he lost before the High Court and the Court of Appeal, there was no disputable issue under the Constitution to be decided, nor was there need for clarification of the board’s ruling in the case of Jaroo. In Jaroo, the law lords indicated that constitutional motions should only be brought when there are no other available avenues.

Earlier this year the Appeal Court dismissed Panday’s motion, noting that there were parallel remedies available to him.

In his motion, Panday had claimed that he had been charged with an offence which did not exist at the time the complaint was laid and, secondly, that the charge ought not to have been brought against him because the limitation period for laying such a charge had expired.

The court noted that instead of a constitutional motion, Panday should have sought judicial relief by (I) submissions in limine before Mc Nicolls — that is to say the proceedings were a nullity, judicial review and a no-case submission, among others avenues.

After the dismissal of the motion, Panday filed an application seeking leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee, but the Attorney General objected to leave being granted on the ground that there was no constitutional issue to be tried.

The application was heard by CJ Sharma and Justices Stanley John and Ivor Archie, who gave their ruling yesterday.

Panday was represented by attorney Anand Ramlogan, while the AG’s attorney was Douglas Mendes SC.

Sharma said that the skeleton arguments submitted by both attorneys were so comprehensive that he did not have any questions. However, in his oral judgment the CJ pointed out that the main issue was whether Panday’s fundamental rights were denied — if there was a complaint about the process, or bias against him.

He said that looking at the proceedings as a whole, they were satisfied that no part of the law was involved in any interpretation.

Panday was charged with making a false declaration to the Integrity Commission for the years 1997, ’98 and ’99 concerning a London bank account.