|
Port-of-Spain, Trinidad, July 26, 2006 - Several developments have arisen over the embattled Chief Justice who police want for allegedly perverting the course of justice.
There is a new statement denying that there was consensus by the Judiciary over events which took place on Friday July 14 when the police tried unsuccessfully to execute an arrest warrant on the Chief Justice.
One of his attorneys, Mr Russell Martineau, has also issued a statement to make it clear what his involvement was with telephone conversations to the presiding judge, Justice Judith Jones.
At the same time Attorney General John Jeremie has asked the Judicial and Legal Service Commission to start an investigation of "morally wrong" and "improper" misbehaviour by Appeal Court Justice Stanley John whom he alleged interfered with the police in the execution of their duty on July 14.
The state has also challenged Justice Jones' order not to arrest the Chief Justice.
The full report follows.
NO FULL JUDICIAL AGREEMENT
A new release attributed to the "Judiciary of Trinidad and Tobago" issued Sunday over the attempted arrest of the country's Chief Justice was not a consensus position.
That is according to a release issued Monday and signed by Asha Samaroo, Court Communications and Information Officer which stated that she had been directed by the Chief Justice to issue the release to clarify that the Sunday statement was issued from the office of the Chief Justice and that it was not a "collaborative agreement of the entire Judiciary" but only those present at the residence of the Chief Justice on Friday July 14, 2006
According to the release, this second statement became necessary because: "Newspaper reports have erroneously given the impression that the statement which emanated from the office of the Chief Justice on Sunday July 23, 2006, in relation to events which took place at his residence on Friday July 14, 2006, was as a result of a collaborative agreement of the entire Judiciary.... Clearly, in the circumstances, this could not be so as they were not present.... The statement which was issued was done with the agreement of all parties who were present at the Chief Justice's residence on Friday July 14, 2006."
The first statement was reacting to a statement by Commissioner of Police Trevor Paul that Appeal Court Judge Stanley John interfered with a police operation by making a telephone call to presiding Justice Judith Jones to obtain a further injunction to prevent his officers executing an arrest warrant on the Chief Justice. The Commissioner presented telephone records to argue his case. The statement issued by the Chief Justice's office denied the charge and said that the calls to Justice Jones were placed by Mr Russell Martineau (attorney for the Chief Justice) and the Registrar of the Supreme Court Ms Evelyn Ann Petersen.
MARTINEAU CLEARS THE AIR
In his statement issued on Saturday July 15, Mr Martineau recalled that he spoke to Justice Jones on two occasions but on a mobile phone - something he reiterated yesterday in another release yesterday.
He said that he did not speak with Justice Jones from a landline at the home of the Chief Justice but rather twice from a mobile phone after which the connection failed.
After that, Mr Martineau said that he was told that a senior police officer using a landline, spoke to Justice Jones and then indicated to those present that the police exercise was over.
"That is the extent of my communication with the learned judge. I spoke to the learned judge on a mobile phone when the Registrar telephoned the learned judge and passed the phone to me," he said in his statement.
The attorney also said that the agreed with the release of the Sunday statement by the Chief Justice's office however he "did not have sight of the final draft which was issued as I was in Tobago over the weekend."
ATTORNEY GENERAL FILES COMPLAINT
Attorney General John Jeremie has filed a complaint to the Judicial and Legal Service Commission alleging "morally wrong" and "improper" misbehaviour by Appeal Court Justice Stanley John in the police's recent unsuccessful attempt to arrest Chief Justice Sharma.
He has asked for an investigation.
In his letter he alleged that Justice John "directly intervened on behalf of the Chief Justice so as to prevent or impede the execution of the warrant for the arrest of the Chief Justice by enquiring of the Officers whether there was a problem, informing the Officers that there was a High Court Order preventing the arrest of the Chief Justice and then personally undertaking to inform the Chief Justice of the situation".
He further alleged that that Justice John "directly intervened on behalf of the Chief Justice so as to prevent or impede the execution of the warrant for the arrest of the Chief Justice by personally undertaking to inform the Chief Justice after the Officers indicated to the Registrar of the High Court and Justice of Appeal John that notwithstanding the service of the handwritten order of Madam Justice Jones served by the Honorable Registrar upon the Officers, the Chief Justice will be taken into custody in order to execute the warrant".
The Attorney General stated that "at or around 6:52 pm" on Friday July 14, 2006 that 1) Justice John "directly intervened so as to obstruct the Officers in the execution of the warrant by placing a call to the Justice Jones, 2) asking ACP Reyes to enter the residence of the Chief Justice to take speak with Justice Jones on the telephone, and 3) asking Justice Jones who was already on the telephone whether she would speak with ACP Reyes and then handing over the phone to him.
The Attorney General contended that this is "morally wrong and improper" behaviour which demonstrates "a lack of integrity on the part of Justice of Appeal John". He charged that Justice John used his judicial status "to advance the interests of the Chief Justice and/or to influence the course of litigation".
This action, said Mr Jeremie, undermines public respect and confidence in the system of justice.
Chief Justice Sharma is charged with trying to influence the outcome of a case against former Prime Minister Basdeo Panday in which he was found guilty of not declaring assets while in office to the Integrity Commission. He was found guilty in April and sentenced to two years with hard labour which is the maximum penalty. He was released on bail pending an appeal.
Chief Justice Sharma has challenged the charges by the police and applied for a Judicial Review which has been granted. In the meantime the High Court has also issued an order preventing police from arresting the Chief Justice.
The state has appealed that ruling handed down Monday.
|
