The Privy Council's ruling in a civil lawsuit quashing the committal of several people, including a former government minister, a group of business people and several companies accused of fraud and corruption, during the construction of the Piarco Airport terminal building over two decades ago, hangs in the balance. Director of Public Prosecutions. Roger Gaspard, SC, has discretion over whether it will continue or come to an end.

On Monday, the Privy Council held that the complaint by the accused of apparent bias against then Chief Magistrate Sherman McNicolls was sufficient to strike down their committal to stand trial before a judge and jury.

Attorney General Reginald Armour, SC, has not responded to a request for comment, even though the AG is listed as the defendant in the civil matter before the Privy Council. Communications Minister Symon de Nobriga was approached for comment, but referred the matter to the AG.

In a telephone interview on Monday, hours after the ruling, Gaspard referred to the public-interest considerations he would have to take into account before making a decision on the future of the matter.

"This is not an automatic decision, this is something that requires more mature consideration. The judgment only came out today (Monday).

"Whatever decision is made, fairness must be the touchstone," he said.

Among the factors, the DPP said he will have to take into consideration to proceed in the public's interest, according to the code for prosecutors, are: whether there is sufficient cogent evidence available, after the passage of so much time; the availability of witnesses; the fading memory of witnesses; the death of some state witnesses; the severity of the crime; the age of the matter; the parties involved; the breach of trust; and the allegations that directly affect public funds.

If the DPP feels the evidence meets that threshold, he can direct the matter to restart, But if he does not, the matter ends there. Section 90 (3)(c) of the Constitution gives him the sole discretion "to discontinue at any stage before judgment is delivered any such criminal proceedings instituted or undertaken by himself or any other person or authority."

One prosecutor, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said even though there is sufficient evidence to restart a matter after a lengthy delay, the DPP will still have to resolve whether it is in the public's interest to proceed.

According to the code for prosecutors, the DPP, in weighing the public interest in pursuing the matter afresh, will also take into account the significant cost to taxpayers expended over the last 22 years in the face of the worsening economic situation in the country.

In the event the matter is restarted, lawyers for the accused have already signalled their intention to argue that it would be an abuse of process for their clients to face a fresh inquiry after so much time has elapsed, and the fact that the previous hearing by the Chief Magistrate was tainted by apparent bias and political influence.

One prosecu