Lesson in delay

CARL LOUIS Hoi Pong must consider himself a very lucky man. Seventeen years ago, the cashier at the Inland Revenue Department was charged with embezzlement and fraud but never faced a judge and jury. On Wednesday, he walked out of the Port-of-Spain First Magistrates’ Court freed of all the six charges as no one came to testify against him at the preliminary inquiry. How could such a thing happen? Well, as the matter unfolded over that long stretch of time, a series of circumstances, including his absconding twice to the United States and delay in completing the preliminary inquiry, conspired to upset the course of justice.

The final result was that the prosecution, after so much time had elapsed, could not produce any of its witnesses. State Attorney Narina Parsis explained to Senior Magistrate Ejenny Espinet that the witnesses no longer had any desire to give evidence as some of them were now elderly or physically challenged, while others from Inland Revenue had since retired. Even the complainant, Sgt Philbert Davis had retired from the Police Service. As a result, the State Attorney said she could proceed no further with the matter.

In July 1987, Sgt David obtained a warrant for Hoi Pong’s arrest, but the IR cashier had left his job eight months before, flew to New York and never returned. He was located in August 1987 in North Miami and, instead of contesting the extradition proceedings, he returned voluntarily to Trinidad in 1988. The preliminary inquiry dragged on for the next three years until Hoi Pong absconded in 1991, again to the US. A warrant was obtained for his arrest but Hoi Pong ran into further trouble in Florida; he was arrested and charged with others for conspiracy to traffic in cocaine and jailed for several years.

After his release in 2002, Hoi Pong voluntarily returned to Trinidad to face the charges. But by that time Magistrate Melville Beard had been elevated to the Bench and the preliminary inquiry was fixed to start anew before a new magistrate, Ejenny Espinet. The accused remained in custody for some time before a Judge in Chambers granted him bail. But again the inquiry dragged on, adjourning ten times at the request of the prosecution. Finally, Parsis gave up, declaring that she could not produce the witnesses for trial. It is not for us to pronounce on the guilt or innocence of  Hoi Pong or any other person facing charges before our courts. Indeed we respect the established principle which holds that a person must be considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

The point we wish to make in this matter, however, is that our system of justice must be made to operate with reasonable dispatch. Preliminary inquiries should not drag on for years, since it affects the process as memories of witnesses fade, some lose interest while others migrate to other countries. The Hoi Pong matter is an extreme illustration of this, although the 17-year delay was not due only to the slowness of the courts and the prosecution. We sincerely hope that such a case will never recur. Indeed we must credit the present Chief Magistrate Sherman McNicolls with setting a personal example of productivity in the Magistracy, especially in dealing with inquests and preliminary inquiries. Still, the Hoi Pong matter provides a lesson that all magistrates must learn.