Judge rules on Panday’s case tomorrow

Jones, presiding in the Port-of-Spain Fifth Civil Court, heard submissions from attorneys representing Panday and Chief Magistrate Sherman Mc Nicolls. When they were completed, the judge indicated that she needed to put her decision in writing.

Panday is seeking an order of the High Court to quash the decision of the Chief Magistrate dated January 12, dismissing submissions made on his behalf. Panday, Leader of the Opposition, also wants an order stopping the Chief Magistrate from determining the three charges laid against him.

Panday was charged with failing to declare to the Integrity Commission his London bank accounts for the years 1997, 1998, and 1999, in accordance with the Integrity in Public Life Act 2000.

Desmond Allum SC, Fyard Hosein, Rajiv Persad and Devesh Maharaj appeared for Panday, while Douglas Mendes SC, Stuart Young and Michael Quamina represented the Chief Magistrate.

In his submissions, Hosein said the Chief Magistrate failed to give reasons when he dismissed Panday’s arguments last week. He said substantial submissions were presented to Mc Nicolls.

He pointed out that a large number of authorities were submitted during the hearing which lasted some three hours.

He said the prosecution responded without citing one authority and the Chief Magistrate dismissed the application without merit. Hosein said the Chief Magistrate was invited by counsel to provide reasons for his decision, but they received none.

Hosein said he informed Mc Nicolls that Panday’s petition for special leave is due to be heard before the Privy Council on February 16. He said that despite this, Mc Nicolls still insisted that the summary trial begin.

Hosein said there was an arguable case made out by Panday. He said the decision of the Chief Magistrate to proceed to hear the charges was in excess of his jurisdiction.

He said that based on Section 29 of the Interpretation Act, the Director of Public Prosecutions should have laid the charges against Panday within six months, and not five years as the State contends.

In his response, Mendes disagreed that the charges laid against Panday were filed out of time. He said it was wrong of the applicant to believe that the limitation period for offences under the amended Integrity in Public Life Act 2000 was not six months, but five years.

Mendes said Section 29 of the Interpretation Act did not apply in this case.

He said what applies here was Section 27 (1) which specifies that although the 1987 Act was repealed, the institution of criminal proceedings under the 2000 Act is to be treated as if the 1987 Act was not repealed and continued to be in force.

Mendes said this was the effect of the Court of Appeal on September 16 last year in a constitutional motion brought by Panday.

Mendes said the decision of the Chief Magistrate not to adjourn the criminal trial was a proper exercise of judicial discretion.

He said Panday had more than enough time to lodge his petition to appeal to the Privy Council in a timely fashion, but failed to do so until some three and half months after the Court of Appeal judgment.

Senior Counsel said the existence of pending proceedings in a court of superior jurisdiction was not a factor to be taken into account by a judge in deciding how in the interest of justice to exercise his powers to regulate proceedings in his own court.

"A relevant factor is the desirability in the public interest of ensuring that charges properly brought are pressed to a conclusion," Mendes added.