Young: Small fish catch big fish

” Young said analyses of white-collar crime show, “there is somebody who sits up in the clouds called a big fish.” He continued, “Down below the big fish, there are some small fish who are critical to the carrying out of crime.”

While the big fish make the collection of evidence to prosecute them difficult, Young explained, “Those small fish are the ones who very frequently have left their fingerprints and their footprints on the scene of the crime.”

The minister said when the small fish are held and presented with the evidence gathered against them, “they can now enter into discussions and give up the big fish because if they agree to plead guilty to lesser offences or not put themselves through a trial, it can be part of the discussion how they provide that evidence, that nexus, that link with the big fish.” Stating that plea discussion has featured in this country’s legislation since 1999, Young said it is a, “very important element in the criminal justice system.” Apart from being a useful tool in curbing white-collar crime and corruption, Young said, “It applies equally of course to crimes which have to do with narcotics, illegal drugs and firearms.” As he assured Opposition Leader Kamla Persad-Bissessar that there are safeguards in the legislation to prevent a guilty person from going free, Young cited the victim impact statement as an important feature of the bill.

Noting that businesses and children can be victims of crime, Young said this mechanism allows victims to participate in this legal process.

However, St Augustine MP Prakash Ramadhar questioned whether this bill could facilitate the manufacturing of evidence to free a guilty person. “In the prisons today, word has come to me that the boys are salivating for this legislation,” he claimed. Ramadhar further alleged, “They are salivating because the most immediate beneficiaries of this thing, are those who have multiple charges before the courts.” He warned, “This scalpel could turn into a dagger.” However, Ramadhar added this did not mean the Opposition was not supporting the bill.

“We created it. We want it. We need it but we must do it right,” he said. Describing the bill as “so-so law,” Ramadhar told Government MPs, “We are going to help you fix it.” He reiterated, “This thing is subject to incredible mischief and that is the link.

There is no penalty in this legislation to deal with those people.” Ramadhar also said the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has no authority to place a person under witness protection.

Public Utilities Minister Fitzgerald Hinds supported Young’s position that there were sufficient safeguards in the bill.

Making passing reference to former attorney general Anand Ramlogan recently dropping a matter against him, Hinds said he initially wanted to continue the matter but decided against it.

“I did it grudgingly,” Hinds remarked.

Oropouche East MP Dr Roodal Moonilal later said in February 1999 as an Opposition MP, Hinds opposed the idea of plea discussion legislation because innocent persons could be framed. Claiming Hinds would not be able to deal with what he was going to say, Moonilal invited Hinds to leave the Parliament Chamber before the tea break.

Hinds declined that invitation.