Panday denied judicial review

However, the Privy Council still remains a hurdle, as Panday has already petitioned the lawlords on an issue arising out of an earlier appeal on his charge of failing to disclose his London bank accounts to the Integrity Commission.

The Privy Council is expected to hear the matter on February 16, 2006, while the date for his trial before Mc Nicolls is set for February 22.

Panday, a former prime minister, is charged with failing to declare his London bank account as part of his assets for the years 1997,1998 and 1999.

Panday will also ask the law lords to hear him on the issues he wants to raise before the Court of Appeal which deal with the interpretation of Section 29 of the Act.

He will also ask the Privy Council to determine if the charges filed against him were out of the statutory time of the Act, which would mean he has no case to answer.

Panday’s attorney, Fyard Hosein SC, argued that his client should not be put through a trial because of bad legislation. Among Hosein’s concern was that if the trial was to continue and Panday convicted, untold damage would be done to Panday’s public image and his privacy invaded — all because of a faulty charge.

Douglas Mendes SC, who appeared for the State, argued that Panday could raise these issues before the magistrate, and could appeal if he is unhappy with the result.

Justices Margot Warner, Ivor Archie and Allan Mendonca, who dismissed the appeal, noted that the limitation point raised by Panday, although different, is already before the Privy Council.

Also appearing with Hosein were Desmond Allum SC and Rajiv Persad, while assisting Mendes were Stuart Young and Michael Quamina.