State prosecutors are seeking to adduce new evidence against former government minister Collin Partap in his appeal over his conviction for failing to submit to a breathalyser test almost four years ago.
During a hearing of Partap’s appeal at the Hall of Justice in Port-of-Spain yesterday, Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) George Busby signal his office’s intention to the tender fresh evidence in the case.
Partap’s attorney and Busby were expected to present submissions in the appeal during yesterday’s hearing, however, they were deferred by the application.
Appellate Judges Alice Yorke-Soo Hon and Mark Mohammed said they would entertain the application because of the public interest in Partap’s case. They then gave the attorneys dates for filing written submissions on the applications and then adjourned the case to January 27.
In August 2012, then junior national security minister was charged with refusing to submit himself to the test outside the Zen Nightclub at Keate Street, Port-of -Spain.
According to the evidence presented during his trial before Chief Magistrate Marcia Ayers-Caesar, police claimed that they saw Partap drinking from a bottle of alcohol while leaving the nightclub.
They testified that Partap got into his SUV, turned on the flashing blue lights and attempted to drive away before they stopped him.
Police claimed that Partap refused several requests to submit to a breathalyser test as he said he would wait to speak to then Police Commissioner Stephen Williams and his lawyer.
Partap was eventually taken to the Belmont Police Station where he had the test, which he passed, after speaking to Williams.
Partap was fired from Cabinet by then prime minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar, after he was charged.
In July 2013, Ayers-Caesar found Partap guilty of the offence and fined him $5,000.
Ayers-Caesar had noted that by taking an oath of office as an MP and minister, Partap had sworn to uphold the laws of T&T and had no excuse not to take the test.
“It was open for him to comply and then complain. He was called upon to display a higher standard of behaviour than what was displayed in the evidence,” Ayers-Caesar said as he noted that the police officers who testified against him were “credible, reliable and compelling.”