Jones rules 6th time for Sharma

She did however, observe the failure of the Chief Justice to inform the State of his application for an injunction. But Jones did not consider it to be fatal and saw no need to discharge the injunction to stop the police from arresting Sharma on a charge of attempting to pervert the course of public justice.

Jones added that if she discharged the injunction and Sharma wins his judicial review case, he would have suffered “serious and irreparable damage and injustice.” On the other hand, if Sharma loses his judicial review case after getting the injunction, it would be the State which will suffer the damage by not having been able to enforce the law.

Jones said she had to take into account the public’s interest and pointed out that the court has a discretion in cases like this. She pointed out that Sharma had to show that he has a strong prima facie case, and she has already ruled on that.

Yesterday, in a 25-minute hearing in the Port-of-Spain High Court, Jones dismissed the application by the Commissioner of Police Trevor Paul for the injunction to be discharged.

Between July 10 and 16, Jones granted several injunctions, restraining Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Carla Brown-Antoine, the investigator, Assistant Commissioner of Police Wellington Virgil, Commissioner Paul and all members of the 7,000-strong police service.

Among the orders granted by Jones, one came late on the night of July 14 on a handwritten piece of paper indicating that service had been served by telephone.

Jones discharged the injunction yesterday against Virgil, but maintained the order against the entire police service from arresting Sharma until the hearing and determination of the judicial review case.

After delivering her judgment, Jones then presided over a case management hearing in camera at which it was decided that Sharma’s judicial review case will be heard between October 9 and 13.

Before giving her decision, Jones asked Gilbert Peterson SC whether his client, Paul, would give an undertaking not to arrest Sharma before the determination of the case. Peterson responded, “My client is not prepared to give an undertaking, but may abide by the ruling of the court.” Jones asked again, but this time Peterson said his client “will abide by the ruling of the court.”

Jones said the issue was the real risk which Sharma faces. She pointed out that without the protection of the law, the Commissioner of Police would execute the warrant on the Chief Justice.

She also dealt with a submission from Ian Benjamin, attorney for Virgil, who argued last week that Sharma came to court and sought an injunction without informing the defendants that he was doing so.

Jones said the decision of the Chief Justice not to inform the defendants was not a fatal flaw. She said Sharma had to show there was a real chance of success for him. She contended that if she discharges the injunction and Sharma succeeds at the trial, he would suffer serious and irreparable damage.

Jones also took note that in arguing the entire case, the defendants may have to tender the 21 statements which Virgil collected during the investigations into Sharma. She said there was a view that if these statements are tendered into evidence, a lot of hearsay material would be admitted causing prejudice to the Chief Justice. But she made it clear that the hearsay material could be dispensed with at the case management stage.

Jones admitted that the public has a right to ensure that the law is not frustrated. She said based on all the evidence before her, it was necessary to maintain the injunction against the police pending the hearing and determination of the judicial review case.

Jones has set September 18 (the opening of the new law term) for another case management hearing.

Sharma is challenging the decision of Brown-Antoine to advise the police to initiate criminal proceedings against him. He is claiming that the decision to charge him was politically-biased. Brown-Antoine has denied that she advised the police, stating that the police decided on their own to charge Sharma. She also denied that she was politically influenced into arriving at any decision with respect to Sharma.

This is the second judicial case going to trial for Sharma. This case involves the decision of the police to charge him after investigating a complaint from Chief Magistrate Sherman Mc Nicolls that Sharma tried to influence him in reaching a decision in the trial of former prime minister Basdeo Panday.

Panday was being tried before Mc Nicolls on charges that he knowingly failed to declare his London bank account to the Integrity Commission for the years 1997, 1998, and 1999. He was found guilty, fined and jailed for two years. He is now out on $300,000 bail pending an appeal.

The first judicial review case brought by Sharma was against the decision of Prime Minister Patrick Manning to recommend to President George Maxwell Richards that a tribunal be appointed to investigate Sharma.

The Prime Minister moved against Sharma following a complaint that Sharma tried to have the prosecution of Vijay Naraynsingh aborted