THE STATE’S 22-year-old criminal case against a former government minister and a group of businessmen arising out of the construction of the Piarco Airport terminal building has been thrown out by the Privy Council on Monday. They had been charged with a multiplicity of offences.
In a 26-page ruling, the Law Lords wrote that the decision of late chief magistrate Sherman McNicolls to commit the accused to stand trial was tainted by apparent political bias.
[caption id="attachment_961954" align="alignnone" width="736"] Sherman McNicholls[/caption]
The decision comes on the heels of a US judge’s ruling disqualifying Attorney General Reginald Armour, SC, and the US law firm Sequor Law from a multi-million-dollar civil asset forfeiture case, on the basis of Armour’s previous work as an attorney for one of the defendants.That matter is under appeal in the US. The case has been dragging on for the last 18 years.
The latest blow to the State’s case threatens to derail another set of criminal charges still under challenge in the local courts, legal sources said.
The Privy Council, in its analysis of the appellants’ case, linked the conviction of former prime minister Basdeo Panday, the move to impeach former chief justice Satnarine Sharma, McNicolls’ corruption claims against Sharma and the intervention of former attorney general John Jeremie. The panel supported the position that there was sufficient information in the public domain to support a claim of apparent bias.
[caption id="attachment_624109" align="alignnone" width="250"] Ishwar Galbaransingh[/caption]
McNicolls had dismissed an application to recuse himself on the basis of apparent bias, and the local courts upheld his decision.
The judgment said: “The above is sufficient for allowing both appeals.
“The constitutional claim succeeds because a tribunal which is seen to be impartial is part and parcel of both due process under section 4 (of the Constitution) and a fair hearing in terms of section 5.
“However, as will be apparent, if there were any doubt on the matter the observer would have a number of other important issues to assess.”
It said these would include “the absence of any reasoning for the Chief Magistrate’s dismissal of the recusal application and the transparent attempt to avoid scrutiny by labelling it as frivolous and vexatious.”
When all these “various sources of concern” were considered together, the Law Lords concluded, “The observer would be likely to agree with the appellants’ submissions that by January 2008 the Chief Magistrate was hopelessly compromised.”
It conceded, “Given that everything was happening in the full glare of publicity his mind must have been in turmoil,” but nevertheless accepted the State’s submissions that if the bias challenge were to fail, there would be no scope for success in the claim for constitutional relief.
“The concerns as to due process and fair hearing are dependent on the same factors which underpin the judicial review (lawsuit). To countenance an inherently vague and novel challe
