Ish, Brian lose in Privy Council

THE DEFENDANTS in the $19 million Piarco Airport fraud case lost a major battle in the Privy Council yesterday. The Judicial Committee refused to grant leave to the defendants to appeal against the decision of the TT Court of Appeal which had ruled against them in July getting a list of all documents which the State has in its possession. Three Law Lords, sitting at Downing Street, London, dismissed the application for leave brought by the defendants and also ordered them to pay costs to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). British Queen’s Counsel James Dingemanns appeared for the State. With yesterday’s decision, the way has now been cleared for the start of the preliminary inquiry on November 19 before Chief Magistrate Sherman Mc Nicolls in the Port-of-Spain Eighth Magistrates’ Court. The defendants are former Government Ministers Brian Kuei Tung and Russell Huggins; Ishwar Galbaransingh, CEO of Northern Construction Limited (NCL); Amrith Maharaj, financial comptroller of NCL; John Henry Smith, CEO of Maritime General Insurance Company; business woman Renee Pierre; secretary Barbara Gomes, and insurance executive Steve Fergusson.

The eight defendants, together with Fidelity Finance and Leasing Company, Maritime General Insurance Company, and NCL, are charged with conspiring to defraud the Airports Authority of more than $19 million — proceeds of the construction of the new $1.6 billion Piarco Airport terminal building. On January 29 this year, the Chief Magistrate agreed to the defence’s application for the State to make a list of all documents and material they intend to use in the Piarco Airport case. Mc Nicolls ordered that the DPP provide to all accused and to the court “a comprehensive list of all the documentation and other material of a similar nature which is or has been in its (State) possession which relates to the inquiry.” He said the State should indicate the items they have already disclosed and to which of the defendants the charges were related. He pointed out that the prosecution should indicate on the list which items it refuses to disclose and the reasons for the refusal. Mc Nicolls said the reason for the order was “to simply assist this court in determining this issue and this order in no way preempts the application made (for disclosure).” The State appealed and on July 21 the Court of Appeal reversed Mc Nicolls’ ruling. The Court of Appeal comprised Justices Margot Warner, Rolston Nelson, and Stanley John. The defendants applied for leave to appeal to the Privy Council, but the Appeal Court comprising Chief Justice Sat Sharma, Justice Rolston Nelson, and Justice Stanley John dismissed the application, saying there were no constitutional issues to be determined in this matter. It was then that the defendants applied for leave to the Privy Council to appeal the Court of Appeal’s ruling on “full disclosure.”