The Privy Council has reserved its judgment on whether the repeal of Section 34 of the Administration of Justice (Indictable Offences) Act was unconstitutional.
Postponing the court’s decision to a date to be decided, Lord David Neuberger yesterday said he and his four colleagues needed time to consider the appeal that was presented by businessmen Ameer Edoo and Steve Ferguson and insurance company Maritime General, who attempted to use the law to escape prosecution for fraud related to the construction of the Piarco International Airport.
Most of yesterday’s hearing was devoted to the role of Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Roger Gaspard in advocating for the repeal after the early proclamation of the clause on August 31, 2012.
Responding to claims by the trio’s lawyers that Gaspard acted improperly by attempting to influence the outcome of his office’s biggest cases, his lawyer Ian Benjamin claimed that advocating for laws for the improvement of the justice system was within his remit.
“The director was at all times acting within his constitutional, statutory and common law powers to take steps and give advice designed to restore the confidence of the T&T public in the adminstration of criminal justice,” Benjamin said.
Stating his client felt the legislation, which sought to clear a backlog of cases, was ineffective, Benjamin said: “As far as the director was concerned it had a negligible positive effect because it only impacted on 47 cases.” He also said his client had a responsibility to address the public furore which followed media reports on the potential impact of the legislation on high profile corruption cases.
“The events gave rise to speculation and the media went so far as to call for the Government to explain whether it colluded to pass Section 34 in favour of the Piarco accused.
“I am not suggesting that there is any substance in the speculation, I’m just saying it was in the public domain,” Benjamin said.
Lord Jonathan Mance appeared to agree with Benjamin’s suggestion that the case was limited to Parliament’s decision to repeal and not to whether or not Gaspard unfairly influenced it through communications with then attorney general Anand Ramlogan. When granted the opportunity to respond, Michael Beloff, QC, who is representing Ferguson and Maritime, claimed that Benjamin understated his client’s role.
“What he did was not an academic exercise. It was a calculated effort to defeat the Piarco defendants,” Beloff said. He was also dismissive of Gaspard’s duty to the public.
“He must allay public concern but should not be swayed by public opinion,” Beloff said.
In addition to Gaspard’s involvement, the trio is also alleging that Parliament infringed on Judicial independence as by repealing the law it removed the court’s power to determine cases already filed before it.
The trio is among 42 persons and companies who filed motions under the legislation which were rendered null and void after the repeal in mid-September 2012.
The majority of the applicants including several former Government ministers are facing charges arising out of the $1.6 billion construction project. The controversial clause gave persons, whose trials for specific offences had not started after 10 years after the crime was allegedly committed, the right to apply to have the case dismissed.
Most filed constitutional motions challenging the repeal with the trio's cases being elected as test cases which will determine the fate of the others.
• December 2011: The Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act is passed by both Houses of Parliament.
• August 31, 2012: Section 34 is proclaimed.
• September 9, 2012: Under the headline “Piarco airport cases to be dropped,” T&T Guardian reports that those charged in the Piarco Airport corruption case may be able to have the charges against them dropped as a result, since the charges were laid more than seven years previously.
Among them are UNC financiers Steve Ferguson and Ish Galbaransingh.
• September 12, 2012: Parliament sits to repeal Section 34.
• October 2012: 42 applicants under Section 34 file constitutional motions claiming their rights were infringed by its repeal.
• April 2013: Justice Mira Dean-Armorer delivers judgment in three of constitutional motions being used as test cases. Dean-Armorer dismisses all eight grounds raised by the three applicants.
• May 2013: The three applicants file their appeal of Dean-Armorer's judgment.
• October 2013: Court of Appeal hears submissions on the appeal for four consecutive days.
• June 4, 2014: Court of Appeal dismisses the appeal, rejecting all grounds raised by three appellants.
• October 19-21, 2015: Privy Council hears final appeal in case and reserves judgment.