PORT OF SPAION, Trinidad, CMC – The Court of Appeal Monday ruled in favour of the State and threw out an injunction that prevented police officers from arresting embattled Trinidad and Tobago Chief Justice Satnarine Sharma on a charge of perverting the course of public justice.
But the three-member court immediately gave permission for lawyers of the embattled chief justice to file an appeal before the London-based Privy Council.
The Privy Council ruled last week that Sharma could not be arrested pending the outcome of his appeals to the London-based judicial body, the highest court in Trinidad and Tobago.
In its 36-page judgement, the Appeal Court was critical of the decision by the lawyers for the State and the Chief Justice to seek the agreement before the Privy Council even before the matter had been heard before the local courts.
The Appeal Court said it did not know on what basis the “jurisdiction of the Privy Council was invoked while the Court was still seized of the matter”.
“Some intimation was given before the start of this appeal that, in the event of a certain outcome, there would be a further appeal. It would have been more appropriate for any undertakings to be sought and obtained before us. Attorneys have an obligation to promote and maintain public confidence in the administration of justice”.
“The wrong signal is sent when attorneys do not appear to have the confidence that this Court, in the event that it does not rule in favour of litigant, would do what is necessary to preserve his rights until the final determination of the matter,” the Appeal Court judges said.
Deputy Director of Public Prosecution, Carla Browne Antoine, Police Commissioner Trevor Paul and his assistant, Wellington Virgil had filed the appeal against the ruling of High Court judge Judith Jones granting Sharma the injunction and also preventing any member of the 7,000 strong Trinidad and Tobago Police Service or their agents from arresting the chief justice.
They had also contended that the judge had erred in law by allowing leave for Sharma to file the judicial review against the charge on the grounds of political bias and interference.
The police had been prevented from executing the arrest warrant against Sharma on July 14. The charge arose from accusation by Chief Magistrate Sherman Mc Nicolls that the chief justice had sought to influence his ruling in th case against former prime minister Basdeo Panday, who was later sentenced to six years jail for failing to declare a London bank account to the Integrity Commission.
Panday, who is on TT$300,000 (US$50,000) bail has since appealed the ruling.
In its judgment, the Appeal Court discharged the injunctions granted on Jul 14 and 16 adding that “the judicial review proceedings at first instances are, for all practical purposes, no longer sustainable”.
“In those circumstances no useful purpose would be served by remitting the matter to the High Court,” the Appeal Court ruled. The judicial review was scheduled for hearing on October 9.
The Appeal Court was also critical of the decision of the Police Commissioner to seek to arrest Sharma on July 14, saying he was aware of the order of the court, “the spirit and intent of which was that no criminal proceedings in respect of the allegation of the Chief justice should be commenced or continued”.
The Appeal Court said it was wrong for the Police Commissioner “to take action without recourse to the Court even though he was not named in the order”.
“It does not matter whether he was in pursuit of what he considered to be a legitimate objective,” the Court ruled, noting however, it did “not think that concern should assume overriding proportions as the real issue is whether there was an evidential basis to ground any stays or injunctions in the first place”.
The Appeal Court said that Justice Jones was also of the view that irreparable harm would have been caused to the chief justice if the arrest had been carried out.
“It is difficult to see how any significant harm beyond that which had already been occasioned would have ensued merely from his surrender to the warrant. Any damage to his reputation and career would have already have occurred by reason of the fact that the charge was already laid, and the accusations were in the public domain”.
The Court of Appeal ruled that provisions had been contained in the warrant for his arrest and Sharma was “likely to suffer only the briefest deprivation of liberty. He remains entitled to all the protection and safeguards of the law. The maintenance of public confidence in the fair and impartial administration of justice requires all persons, whatever their status, to submit to judicial process”.
It said that the judge, having “wrongfully concluded that the respondent had an arguable case on the grounds set out in the various applications for leave, failed to consider the relevant public interest factors adequately or at all.”
“Had she given them proper consideration, she could not reasonably have continued the injunctions,” the Appeal Court ruled.
Regarding Sharma’s claim of political interference and bias, the Appeal Court ruled that “it is common ground that there is no direct evidence of interference in the form of any conversation or written directive passing between the Prime Minister or the Attorney General and the Deputy DPP”.
“It is also common ground that, at the leave stage, the Court is not engaged in a minute weighing and testing of the evidence to determine its weight or veracity. However, the evidence must rise to a certain minimum standard and be capable of reasonably giving rise to the interferences suggested by the claimant”.
“Where the exercise of a prosecutorial discretion is involved, ‘close scrutiny’ is required by the judge before leave is granted,” the Appeal Court ruled.