Cassel: No pleasure in prosecuting him

The case, he added, was a tragic one, as Panday, once a Prime Minister, was in court facing trial relating to his financial affairs. The following is Cassel’s final address:

“Is the account disclosable in law? It was made perfectly clear in the law that all bank accounts in the name of the person in public life must be disclosed in Trinidad and Tobago and abroad.

“The Nat West account is disclosable. It is, according to Mr Panday, maintained by himself and his wife. He is financially responsible for his family.

This account contains the family assets, maintained for his benefit for and on, his behalf. Even if that account was not in his name, in law, it was disclosable.

If that was the case, every person in public life could set up an account in the name of his wife or other agent, say my wife dealt with the account, so it is not mine. That would defeat the purpose of the Act. It is clear the account was disclosable and disclosable in law.

“The State has to prove that Mr Panday knowingly made a false declaration. He can only be convicted if he failed to declare the account if he knowingly made a false declaration.

“It is not a pleasure for me to prosecute this case. This is a tragic case. This is a man who had held the highest political office in the land and continues to hold high office. He is being tried before you on summary offences relating to his financial affairs.

It must be deeply humiliating for Mr Panday to go into the witness box and seek to justify his conduct and then to have his veracity tested in cross-examination. And if there were times I failed to treat him with the respect that was his due, I apologise to you, sir.

“The question is — did Mr Panday bring this on himself? The State regrettably has to submit that he did. This is an account in Mr Panday’s own name. It is an account he admits was started with his rather curious insurance money. It catered for his daughters’ subsistence in London, his wife’s shopping sprees, an account which he says was for the benefit of his family. The fact that the account is mainly administered by his wife does not prevent it being his account and the money in it, his asset.

“Did Mr Panday really believe that it was not disclosable?

“Here is an ex-Prime Minister of a country which has been for some time very sensitive about corruption in high places. Here is a lawyer who would look at legislation passed by a Parliament of which he was a member with a great deal of care.

“Particularly, legislation relating to the conduct of people such as himself. I have to make the point that Mr Panday had a very strong motive for concealing this account from the Integrity Commission. The Integrity Commission has very wide powers to investigate declarations submitted under this legislation. These include making such inquiries as it considers necessary. The Integrity Commission may advise the President to set up a tribunal for the purpose of inquiring into the accuracy of the declaration.

“Let us imagine for one moment what would have happened if Mr Panday had disclosed this account. The Commission would have seen the increase in the balance of the account year by year over a three-year period. Not in the first year, but in the second and third years it would have been striking. The increase was well in excess of the income disclosed in the declaration. The Commission could have asked him to justify this. If not satisfied with his answers, they could set up the tribunal. The tribunal could summon his wife to give evidence, it could summon anyone else including Mr Duprey; it could require Mrs Panday to produce her Diamond Reserve account into which large sums of money were transferred back and forth.

“To disclose this account would have risked all. It is obvious on the evidence that every conceivable step was being taken to prevent this account from coming to the notice of the Trinidad and Tobago authorities.

“The correspondence addresses were either in New Malden in Surrey, or in the case of the Diamond Reserve account, in Marabella in Mrs Panday’s maiden name — Oma Devi Ramkissoon. It is against this background of motive and concealment that we can examine Mr Panday’s unsupported evidence.

“Mr Panday admits that this is an account with substantial sums of money, sums of money increasing at a rate which exceeded his income. A bank account, on his own evidence, which was for the benefit of his wife and daughters. It is a little hard to believe that an account in his name which contained money used to benefit his wife and daughters could genuinely be thought by him not to be an asset.

“One wonders therefore, how he could begin to believe it was not disclosable.

“It is, of course, for you to decide whether this is a reasonable assertion or whether it is wholly untenable in the circumstances of this case. One bears in mind that the substance of this account came from the $1.2 million payment in November 1997. Where did the physical evidence come from, is still in doubt. Which bank account did it come from, Mr. Duprey could not say. It was a scholarship this morning, now it is financial assistance. What is another word for financial assistance - a gift?

Consider this so-called gift. If it was a straight gift, why was it originally described as a scholarship? If it was a straight gift, you may like to consider what the wife of the Prime Minister is doing accepting it from a businessman who may have all sorts of reasons to ingratiate himself with the Government.

“Mr Panday claims he did not know about this money until this case started. This is a most incredible piece of evidence. Could this be true that his wife kept this payment from him? No wife will fail to tell her husband of a gift of one million dollars. It is inconceivable that Mrs Panday would have kept this gift from him.

“The clincher point in this case is the 500 pound cheque which Mr Panday gave to the family doctor, although Mr Newman would say otherwise. A point you may want to consider is whether anyone who has a joint account with his wife and signs a cheque on it payable to the family doctor can reasonably say the account is not his.

“I appreciate that I am not addressing a jury. You (Chief Magistrate) have the immense experience in assessing the evidence and the demeanour of witnesses who gave evidence before you and so I am not going to weary you with a large number of minor points. I take no pleasure in submitting that in reality, Mr Panday’s evidence that this was not his account is untenable.”