Procedural appeal

Partap had appealed his conviction and when the matter came up for hearing in October, the prosecution sought permission from the court to introduce additional evidence as it relates to field sobriety testing.

The appeal on Monday, also sought to do adduce the additional evidence.

Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) George Busby has been given until December 29 to file and serve his submissions in the procedural appeal which was adjourned to January 27.

Justices of Appeal Allan Mendonca, Prakash Moosai and Judith Jones presided over yesterday’s hearing.

Partap’s attorney Ravi Rajcoomar submitted that the issue was better suited for the substantive appeal.

In August 2012, then junior national security minister was charged with refusing to submit himself to the test outside the Zen Nightclub at Keate Street, Port-of -Spain. According to the evidence presented during his trial before Chief Magistrate Marcia Ayers-Caesar, police claimed that they saw Partap drinking from a bottle of alcohol while leaving the nightclub.

They testified that Partap got into his SUV, turned on the flashing blue lights and attempted to drive away before they stopped him. Police claimed that Partap refused several requests to submit to a breathalyser test as he said he would wait to speak to then Police Commissioner Stephen Williams and his lawyer.

Partap was eventually taken to the Belmont Police Station where he had the test, which he passed, after speaking to Williams.

Partap was fired from Cabinet by then prime minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar, after he was charged. In July 2013, Ayers-Caesar found Partap guilty of the offence and fined him $5,000.

Ayers-Caesar had noted that by taking an oath of office as an MP and minister, Partap had sworn to uphold the laws of TT and had no excuse not to take the test.

“It was open for him to comply and then complain. He was called upon to display a higher standard of behaviour than what was displayed in the evidence,” Ayers-Caesar said as he noted that the police officers who testified against him were “credible, reliable and compelling.”