Partap guilty in ‘breath test’ appeal, fined $5,000

Partap was found guilty of refusing to subject himself to a breathalyser test and was fined $5,000 by then Chief Magistrate Marcia Ayers-Caesar.

Having lost his appeal, Partap will now have to pay the fine and will have a conviction recorded against him.

In their written ruling, Justices of Appeal Alice Yorke-Soo Hon and Mark Mohammed said it appeared from the evidence the former minister, who is an attorney, “knew that the police officers were requesting a specimen of breath from him for a breath test.” They also held that the police who arrested Partap “bent over backwards to accommodate him”.

Yorke-Soo Hon delivered the unanimous ruling.

Partap’s attorneys contended that there was no statutory authority for field sobriety testing and refusal to take the test could not be illegal.

According to other evidence presented at his trial, police claimed 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 Partap refused several requests to submit to a breathalyser test as he said he would wait to speak to acting Police Commissioner Stephen Williams and his lawyer.

Partap was eventually taken to the Belmont Police Station.

He was fired from Cabinet by then Prime Minister Kamla Persad- Bissessar after he was charged.

The two appellate judges said once the language used by the police satisfied the request for a specimen of breath then it mattered not that the request may not have included the exact words or phrase as provided within the Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Act.

“A request for a person to submit to a field sobriety test is the same as a request for a breath test, they being one and the same under the Act,” Yorke-Soo Hon said.

In Partap’s case, she said each refusal by the former minister to submit to the test “amounted to an offence under Section 80B of the Act.” “Even if the arrested person finally complies and provides a breath specimen, he may still be charged for failing to do so previously,” she held.

“The appellant stated categorically that he was not willing to take the test. He, therefore, failed to provide a specimen of breath without reasonable cause and was correctly charged for the commission of the offence,” she noted.

The judge also warned that the breach of a right to prompt legal advice will “generally have no bearing on the obligation to provide a specimen of breath.” “Police officers in the execution of their duties cannot wait indefinitely for a person suspected of exceeding the prescribed limit of alcohol consumption to await advice or consultation with his attorney.

“In such circumstances, time is a crucial factor and the length of time that has elapsed between the initial request for the specimen and the actual testing may well affect the specimen and the purpose of the legislation to safeguard road users may be defeated,” she said.

Partap was represented by attorney Ravi Rajcoomar while Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions George Busby argued the appeal on behalf of Acting Police Commissioner Stephen Williams.