Sharma loses application for Judicial Review

FYZABAD MP Chandresh Sharma, yesterday lost an application for judicial review of the decision of the Commissioner of Police in the matter now known as the “parliamentary teacup brawl”. The Commissioner of Police had sought the advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions as to whether or not a charge should be laid against Housing Minister Dr. Keith Rowley, who was accused by Sharma of hitting him (Sharma) with a teacup in the parliament’s tearoom.

Justice Charmaine Pemberton yesterday set aside leave granted by Justice David Myers last week, for Sharma to seek Judicial Review of Police Commissioner Trevor Paul’s action. Justice Pemberton, presiding in the San Fernando High Court, ruled that the Police Commissioner was yet to make a decision whether or not he would prosecute Rowley. Following the alleged teacup throwing incident, House Speaker Barry Sinanan, who had received complaints from both Sharma and Rowley, sent both MPs to the Privileges Committee. But Sharma withdrew his complaint and opted to go through the courts.

Although the DPP advised the Police Commissioner that charges under the House of Representatives Act would not be laid against Rowley, the Commissioner of Police is yet to decide if he will charge Rowley under the Summary Offences Act. Agreeing with Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes that the Commissioner of Police had not made such a decision, Justice Pemberton ruled that Sharma therefore had nothing to challenge by way of judicial review. The judge ordered Sharma to pay costs fit for senior and junior counsel. However, Justice Pemberton announced that she did not address Mendes’ submission that Sharma did not have any locus standi in the lawsuit. His submission that the MP’s case was frivilous and vexatious, was dismissed by the judge. Sharma was represented by attorney and MP for Siparia Kamla Persad-Bissessar.

Justice Pemberton deliberated for 25 minutes after hearing an hour of legal arguments from Persad-Bissessar in reply to preliminary objections on Thursday by Mendes. Persad-Bissessar asked the question whether it would not now be absurd for the Police Commissioner to bring a charge under the Summary Offences Act, assuming that the Commissioner of Police  had wrongly believed that the assault was governed by the House of Representatives Act, hence the reason for his seeking the DPP’s advice. But Justice Pemberton asked Persad-Bissessar: “Has the Commissioner of Police communicated he is not going to act under the Summary Offences Act?”

The attorney replied that the DPP’s advice was communicated since November 14 and March 14 was the statutory deadline for such a charge to be laid under the Summary Offences Act. Justice Pemberton said that it was still open to the applicant (Sharma) to ask the Police Commissioner whether prosecution will be laid. The judge said that in the event Sharma appeals her ruling, she would provide a written judgement.