Mc Nicolls should have stepped down

According to lead counsel Edward Fitzgerald, SC, the former Chief Magistrate should not have continued to adjudicate at the inquiry, especially since the Judicial and Legal Services Commission (JLSC) had filed disciplinary charges against him.

“There was a risk to the proceedings,” he submitted in arguments before Justices of Appeal Gregory Smith, Peter Rajkumar and Charmaine Pemberton in an appeal filed by John Henry Smith, Barbara Gomes, Galbaransingh, Amrith Maharaj and Northern Construction.

The Piarco defendants have complained of the former Chief Magistrate’s participation in the airport inquiry, alleging that he received significant financial and other advantages and favours from the then Attorney General and as a result his adjudication has been in contravention of their rights to be heard by an independent and impartial tribunal.

They had called on Mc Nicolls to step down from presiding over the proceedings in the Port-of-Spain Magistrates Court, prior to him committing them to stand trial.

Mc Nicolls refused to step down.

Their challenge was thrown out by the court and they also lost a bid to appeal the three new charges which were instituted by the Chief Magistrate.

The Piarco inquiry, commonly referred to as Piarco 1, had been ongoing for over five years before Mc Nicolls. The eight people and three companies before the court were committed to stand trial on January 7, 2008.

In January, the Privy Council dashed all hopes by the Piarco defendants not having to face trial in the local courts for their alleged involvement in the Piarco International Airport fraud scandals.