THE Privy Council on Monday quashed the Piarco 1 criminal case by saying then Chief Magistrate, the late Sherman McNicolls, had been "hopelessly compromised" by help from then attorney general John Jeremie to get a Clico company to re-purchase McNicolls' land for $400,000. It is now up to Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Roger Gaspard to decide if to re-start the case – based on factors such as public interest, cost, likely outcome, and whether the fact of a fresh trial and a trial itself would be fair to the accused.
In its 25-page ruling, the Privy Council overruled the Appeal Court's ruling that cases can be challenged only if bias is proven, but said uncertainties arise even if bias is a mere possibility. The appeal case of John Henry Smith and another against the Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago was heard by Lords Hodge, Sales, Leggatt, Burrows and Malcolm.
Others charged in the matter included ex-finance minister Brian Kuei Tung; businessmen Ishwar Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson; and ex-national security minister Russell Huggins.
Alongside the Piarco 1 case and a broader Piarco 2 case, former prime minister Basdeo Panday was before McNicolls on charges of breaching the Integrity in Public Life Act by not disclosing a multi-million dollar London bank account. Also, after McNicolls accused then chief justice Satnarine Sharma of trying to influence him in the Panday trial, Sharma faced a failed move to impeach him plus criminal charges, but the latter evaporated after a refusal to testify by McNicolls who then faced the Judicial and Legal Services Commission (JLSC) for allegedly bringing the administration of justice into disrepute.
The Privy Council's ruling cited both sides. The appellants' arguments said, "By January 2008 the Chief Magistrate was 'beleaguered' and 'hopelessly compromised', all adding to a concern that he would not want to do anything which might jeopardise the support he had been receiving from the Attorney General and the government. His conviction of the former Prime Minister had been quashed because of an appearance of bias on his part.
"The public was aware that the JLSC had preferred disciplinary charges and had decided to defer the question of his suspension until after completion of Piarco 1."
The appellants said the Mustill report backed the JLSC’s allegation that McNicolls' refusal to testify in Sharma's trial had brought the administration of justice into disrepute, adding, "His professionalism, credibility and integrity had been impugned."
Conversely, the Privy Council said the respondents' argued the Privy Council should not overrule the Appeal Court's local insights into the case, and argued that to find a link between the Piarco 1 outcome and the AG's wishes required "an extraordinary degree of speculation."
The ruling favoured the appellants' arguments, rejecting the respondents' claim that any factors like "local customs, attitudes or conditions" were best left to the Appeal Court and not the Privy Council. The judgment said there were "numerous
