Attempt to arrest the CJ

This is the full text of the statement delivered yesterday by Police Commissioner Trevor Paul on Friday’s police action against the Chief Justice.

DURING THE course of this week the matter in relation to an allegation against the Chief Justice has been the focus of intense attention in the media and raised concern also to the nation as a whole. Let me therefore apprise you of the developments in this matter.

On Monday July 10, 2006, at around 4.45 pm I received a copy of an Order from the High Court at my office at Police Headquarters. I have distributed copies of that Order to you the media so that both the media and the country will be informed of the precise details of that particular Order.

I have recognised that there has been some confusion in relation to comments made by the media and others, some of which suggest that the Order had the effect to stay the police action and that the Commissioner of Police was in fact a party to the Court Order. Neither of these conclusions is true.

On receipt of that Order on Monday, I read it thoroughly and from my observation nowhere did it state that the Commissioner of Police was named as a party. I took the deliberate course of action to seek the advice of an independent Senior Counsel on the effect of the Order and the entire question of the matter involving the Police investigation in general.

In my 40 years as a police officer, I have never known of any process, which could have had the effect of halting or interfering with a police prosecution except for discontinuance by the Director of Public Prosections after charges were laid. From the advice I have had the Order of the Court did not do this.

In addition, I sought guidance on and the effect of the law with respect to the recommendation made by the investigator — Assistant Commissioner of Police Wellington Virgil — the officer I had directed to carry out this investigation, an officer whose credentials and credibility are beyond reproach.

Ladies and gentlemen, the function of the Police Service is inter alia to detect crime and other infraction of the law as well as bring before a court of competent jurisdiction any person found committing any offence. Therefore in the exercise of my duty, I declined to seek further legal advice from the Director of Public Prosecutions on this matter.

The advice I obtained from Senior Counsel informed me that the Order did not in fact pre-empt police action. I was also advised that the Order disallowed reliance being placed by the police on any advice of the Deputy DPP and that it would have had the effect of making it unlawful to rely on that advice in terms of any subsequent police action.

On the morning of Friday July 14, 2006, I received another Court Order, which amended the previous Order by naming ACP Virgil as a defendant and at the same debarring him from taking any action before the Court. This Order, in effect, precluded or made impossible any attempt to implement the decision of ACP Virgil.

I therefore took command of the matter and further studied the file pertaining to this matter. I ignored the views expressed on the evidence by ACP Virgil as well of those of Deputy DPP Carla Browne Antoine. I studied the police file which contained in excess of 20 interviews conducted meticulously over seven weeks. I formed my independent judgment on the totality of the evidence gathered from several different sources.

Without going into the evidence some of these sources were persons who worked in close proximity to the Chief Justice, persons who themselves held judicial office. There was corroborating physical evidence and eyewitness accounts.

I formed the view that on the evidence the matter required that a charge be laid against the CJ in relation to perverting the course of justice. I came to this conclusion in my own deliberate judgment conscious of the severe repercussions that the laying of such a charge might have for the reputation of the country and the judiciary. But I came to this conclusion in the awareness of my sworn duty to uphold the rule of law without fear or favour.

As Police Commissioner, I have the honour to lead some fearless police officers. Persons who are men and women of integrity, persons who have been ready to charge where the occasion permits, Ministers of Government and members of Parliament of whatever persuasion.

The matter was thoroughly investigated. The Chief Magistrate was thoroughly investigated. In fact, the Chief Justice’s attorneys, by letter, thanked the investigator for his courtesy in the course of the investigation. All investigations must come however, to a conclusion and this one has.

I formed the view on the totality of the evidence that one person should be charged and that a charge should be laid at once.

In view of the seriousness of the charge, I requested, out of an abundance of caution, the view of experienced criminal counsel. I received two views of independent senior counsels. They agreed with my conclusion that a criminal charge must be laid, and advised that a warrant should first be obtained from a judicial officer. I repeat, they advised that a warrant should first be obtained from a judicial officer to arrest the Chief Justice.

A warrant of arrest was obtained and it was in obedience to that command that my police officers went to the home of the Chief Justice to execute the warrant. On arrival at his residence the Chief Justice barricaded himself in a room. My officers did not break down the door as would normally occur.

During that time Justice of Appeal John, placed a call to a judge who ordered the police officers not to proceed. Mr Russell Martineau also intervened to prevent the arrest of the Chief Justice. Police officers, not wishing to allow spectacle, and in the face of what appeared to be yet another court order, decided to leave the premises and to seek further advice and clarification.

Ladies and gentlemen, the due process of law in this nation must take its course and be observed with deference. It must serve one and all if respect for law must have meaning. I wish to assure the national community that the Police Service will, implement the law without favour or affection and will at all times uphold the rule of law. Anyone against whom there is sufficient evidence to afford prosecution will be proceeded against. Anyone who breaks the law will be subject to law. The police will do its duty fearlessly but in a fair and respectful way to every citizen. We shall act carefully and boldly. Above all we shall act impartially and in good faith. Our actions in the past will confirm that we are prepared to take action against anyone and I repeat, anyone in respect of whom evidence of criminality or wrongdoing exists.

I regret I am unable to take questions.