Privy Council blanks Panday

Panday was hoping that the Law Lords would have granted him leave to pursue a constitutional motion against the Attorney General in which he was contending that the charges laid against him were filed out of time and, therefore, he should not be prosecuted.

Panday, Leader of the Opposition, was charged by Assistant Commissioner of Police Wellington Virgil on September 18, 2002, with failing to declare to the Integrity Commission his London bank accounts for 1997, 1998, and 1999, in accordance with the Integrity in Public Life Act 2000.

The petition was heard before Lords Hoffmann, Walker and Mance. Panday was represented by Alan Newman QC and Anand Beharrylal. English Queen’s Counsel James Guthrie, Douglas Mendes SC, and John Almeida appeared for the Attorney General.

Newman was the first to make submissions to the board. His contribution lasted just 25 minutes. But before calling on Guthrie to respond, the three Lords got up and retired. They returned ten minutes later and said there was no need to call on the Attorney General to respond. They then dismissed Panday’s petition and ordered him to pay costs. No reasons were given for dismissing the petition.

The board was of the view that the complaints made by Panday in the constitutional motion should be made before the magistrate hearing the criminal case, and not by way of separate proceedings which they feel could have the effect of frustrating the main case.

The three charges against Panday will come up before Chief Magistrate Sherman Mc Nicolls in the Port-of-Spain Eighth Magistrates’ Court on February 22. Panday has now lost the motion in the High Court, Court of Appeal, and the Privy Council, and his costs would easily run past $1 million.

The charges were laid against Panday on September 18, 2002. Panday appeared in court on November 29, 2002, where he pleaded not guilty. It was put to February 24, 2003, where it was agreed that the case would begin on April 9, 2003.

On that day, the defence raised certain constitutional points which were subsequently referred to the High Court by the Chief Magistrate. It was not until September 16, 2003, that the originating motion was filed in the High Court.

Madame Justice Maureen Rajnauth-Lee dismissed the motion on February 24, 2004. Three days before the matter was due to come before Mc Nicolls, the defence filed grounds of appeal with the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on September 19, 2005, and the case returned to Mc Nicolls on October 24.

The case was called last month when British Queen’s Counsel Sir Timothy Cassel indicated that he had two witnesses from the National Westminster Bank in Trinidad to testify.

Cassel said the prosecution had just seven witnesses and accused the defence of delaying tactics to avoid the start of Panday’s trial.