Defence insists State lawyers in contempt of court

DEFENCE attorney Frank Solomon SC yesterday accused prosecutor Gilbert Peterson SC of being in contempt of court by his refusal to obey an order given by Chief Magistrate Sherman Mc Nicolls at the last hearing of the Piarco Airport Corruption Inquiry. Peterson had on Thursday been ordered to bring all the documents that had been seized from Maritime General Insurance Company Ltd and Fidelity Finance and Leasing Company Ltd during the execution of a search warrant early in 2002. However, when the matter was called close to 10.30 am yesterday, the prosecution had not complied with the order. Instead, he indicated to Mc Nicolls his desire to assist him (the Magistrate) “further” in his order.

The prosecutor said when the defence had made the request on the last day, he did not have an authority to challenge the request but he had found one and wanted the Magistrate’s permission to read it. Disclosure of the documents, Peterson said, would be disclosure of unused material, which would be “leaning into error.” This caused Solomon to immediately rise to his feet. “He can’t ignore your order and come here to re-argue. We have come here on the basis that the documents would be here. He has no other duty at this stage other than to obey your order,” the defence attorney said. Peterson’s response that he had “noted the order” brought Solomon to his feet again. “His duty is not to note, but to obey. Mr Peterson is in contempt of court by disobeying your order. I’m asking you not to review your order unless there is compliance by the State,” the defence attorney told the Magistrate.

This request was echoed by fellow defence attorneys Vernon de Lima, Desmond Allum SC, Ian Brooks and Gillian Lucky. When asked by the Magistrate why he had not complied with the order, Peterson said the documents were too voluminous. Solomon, however, argued that the volume did not stop the State from seizing the documents. The arguments took a different turn when de Lima insisted that he needed the documents “to put them in evidence through the witness (ASP Wayne Boyd).” Peterson then accused de Lima of “shifting his ground because he realised he was on thin ice.”  He said that when the attorney had requested that the documents be brought to court, it was for the defence to inspect them. “Today he wants to put them into evidence,” Peterson said. However, de Lima’s colleagues continued to support his request that the documents be brought. According to Lucky, the defence wanted to first view the documents before each defence attorney decided which ones they wanted tendered into evidence.

“The prosecution’s action is a clear breach of justice. They should not prevent the defence from tendering documents into evidence so your worship can have a fair view of the evidence. The documents must not be selectively tendered to give a skewed picture,” she said. The attorney argued that the duty of ministers of justice, Senior Counsel or not, was to be free and fair in the administration of justice. Mc Nicolls upheld his initial order and Peterson’s request for the matter to be stood down for 40 minutes so he could “seek the advice of the DPP as to whether or not the documents should be brought here,” was denied. Boyd was then called to the stand and Lucky continued with her cross-examination. The documents are expected to be brought to court when hearing resumes today.