English QC tells court: Panday singled out for prosecution

Newman kept his promise and started his submission, that the prosecution of his client was an abuse of process because it violates Panday’s rights as contained in Section 4 (b) and (d) of the Constitution. He wants the court to stay the proceedings on the ground of abuse of process.

The hearing of the submission is being heard in the middle of the prosecution’s case.

Normally, such submissions are made before any evidence is heard, or at the close of the prosecution’s case. This submission is being heard in the middle of the prosecution’s case and without objection from lead prosecutor, Sir Timothy Cassel QC.

When hearing ended yesterday, Newman was still trying to convince Chief Magistrate Sherman Mc Nicolls that his client was unfairly treated. Newman will resume his submission today, but only after another prosecution witness gives evidence.

Nat West Bank official Kim Curtis-Wynne will testify when hearing resumes this morning, Cassel told the court. That means that the continuation of Newman’s arguments will be pushed back.

Panday, former prime minister, is before Mc Nicolls in the Port-of-Spain Eighth Magistrates’ Court charged with knowingly making a false declaration to the Integrity Commission, in that he failed to disclose his Nat West bank account in London for the years 1997, 1998,
and 1999.

Newman contended that Panday’s rights were violated under Section 4 (b) the right of the individual to equality before the law, and the protection of the law, and 4 (d) the right of the individual to equality of treatment from any public authority in the exercise of any functions.

Newman said the Integrity Commission and the Director of Public Prosecutions were public authorities within the meaning of Section 4 (d).

The English QC submitted five well-known Trinidad cases in support of his argument — Smith v LJ Williams Ltd (1980); AG v KC Confectionery Ltd (1985); Bhagwandeen v AG (Privy Council 2003); Central Broadcasting Services Ltd and Maha Sabha v AG (2003); and Dindayal V AG (2003).

Newman said the legal authorities support his contention that Panday was treated differently from some other similarly circumstanced persons.

Newman referred to the annual reports of the Integrity Commission. He said a review of the reports shows a deliberate policy/practice of not prosecuting offences relating to the filing of declarations and/or statements of registrable interests under the Integrity in Public Life Act 1987 and 2000.

“There can be no better evidence than the views of the very body which administers the Act. Take the Integrity Commission’s views and accept them,” Newman added.

Newman said there were many persons who failed to file declarations. “Complete non-disclosure is a more serious matter. The allegation here is not disclosing the bank account. There are some who have not disclosed at all, they must be hiding a bank account or properties around the world.”