JavaScript is disabled in your web browser or browser is too old to support JavaScript. Today almost all web pages contain JavaScript, a scripting programming language that runs on visitor's web browser. It makes web pages functional for specific purposes and if disabled for some reason, the content or the functionality of the web page can be limited or unavailable.

Tuesday, February 18, 2025

Panday freed of 11-year-old UK bank charge

by

20120626

Eleven years af­ter be­ing charged with fail­ing to de­clare a Lon­don bank ac­count to the In­tegri­ty Com­mis­sion, for­mer prime min­is­ter Bas­deo Pan­day was ac­quit­ted yes­ter­day of the charges. A month ago, Port-of-Spain mag­is­trate Mar­cia Mur­ray ad­journed the mat­ter to con­sid­er the ev­i­dence and de­liv­er a rul­ing on an ap­pli­ca­tion by Pan­day's lead at­tor­ney, David Aaron­berg, QC, for the mat­ter to be stayed on the ground of abuse of process.

Yes­ter­day, Mur­ray dis­charged Pan­day, say­ing: "The court is com­pelled to stop these pro­ceed­ings to pro­tect the in­tegri­ty of the crim­i­nal jus­tice sys­tem." She ruled the In­tegri­ty Com­mis­sion had erred by not giv­ing Pan­day a chance to be heard be­fore a tri­bunal. That meant he was de­prived of due process of law, she added. In­stead the com­mis­sion sent the mat­ter to the Di­rec­tor of Pub­lic Pros­e­cu­tions.

Mur­ray ruled: "The mis­con­duct of the In­tegri­ty Com­mis­sion was so se­ri­ous that it would un­der­mine pub­lic con­fi­dence in the crim­i­nal jus­tice sys­tem and bring it in­to dis­re­pute. "The court is there­fore com­pelled to stop these pro­ceed­ings to pro­tect the in­tegri­ty of the crim­i­nal jus­tice sys­tem." Mur­ray de­liv­ered her rul­ing in less than five min­utes when the mat­ter was called in the First Mag­is­trates' Court as she read from the 19-page judge­ment.

Pan­day, who was seat­ed in the pris­on­er dock, did not re­act. But when he emerged from the court­room, with his daugh­ter, Mick­ela, a smil­ing Pan­day said: "Af­ter all these years of strug­gle, I have ex­pe­ri­enced all things, all the ups and downs. My lawyers have done their work and I am re­al­ly grate­ful for that."

He said he was con­fi­dent the ap­pli­ca­tion to stay the mat­ter would be grant­ed af­ter hear­ing Aaron­berg's sub­mis­sions on the last oc­ca­sion. Aaron­berg had ar­gued that Pan­day was "sin­gled out" and used as a po­lit­i­cal foot­ball and the in­ves­ti­ga­tor failed to com­plete per­ti­nent checks which was un­fair to Pan­day. Pan­day was be­fore Mur­ray for re­tri­al for al­leged­ly fail­ing to de­clare a Lon­don bank ac­count, con­trary to the In­tegri­ty in Pub­lic Life Act.

He was ac­cused of fail­ing to dis­close the ac­count at Na­tion­al West­min­ster Bank Plc, Wim­ble­don, Lon­don, to the In­tegri­ty Com­mis­sion for the years 1997, 1998 and 1999. In March 2006, Pan­day was found guilty and sen­tenced by Chief Mag­is­trate Sher­man Mc Nicolls to two years in prison.

Pan­day ap­pealed that de­ci­sion and the con­vic­tion was quashed and a re­tri­al or­dered, which was up­held on ap­peal to the Privy Coun­cil. State pros­e­cu­tor Tim­o­thy Cas­sel, QC, had dis­missed ar­gu­ments Pan­day had not been treat­ed fair­ly and said it was the court's du­ty to try him and the court's sense of pro­pri­ety and jus­tice would be of­fend­ed if the State had not done so.

Yes­ter­day's rul­ing was de­liv­ered in the ab­sence of Aaron­berg and Cas­sel, who are both in Eng­land. Asked what he in­tend­ed to do now the mat­ter was fi­nal­ly over, Pan­day said: "I am work­ing and en­joy­ing my­self. I am hav­ing fun." Mick­ela Pan­day ex­pressed re­lief that the mat­ter was over, say­ing:

"It has been an emo­tion­al, fi­nan­cial and phys­i­cal strain on us. I am re­lieved it is over and jus­tice has pre­vailed. I am pleased with the de­ci­sion and the truth has come out." Un­able to say what the State's next move would be un­til af­ter dis­cus­sions with the Di­rec­tor of Pub­lic Pros­e­cu­tions, at­tor­ney An­ju Bho­la, who ap­peared along­side Cas­sel and Renu­ka Ramb­ha­jan, de­clined com­ment.

Soon af­ter leav­ing the court, Pan­day went to the Er­ic Williams Med­ical Sci­ences Com­plex, Mt Hope, to vis­it his broth­er, Sub­has, who was un­der­go­ing tests. Sub­has Pan­day could not be reached for com­ment.

Mur­ray's rul­ing:

"In cas­es of false de­c­la­ra­tions made un­der the act, the In­tegri­ty Com­mis­sion plays a 'pre-pros­e­cu­tion' role in that on­ly af­ter it has con­duct­ed its due process can it re­fer per­sons to the Di­rec­tor of Pub­lic Pros­e­cu­tions. "For these pur­pos­es, the In­tegri­ty Com­mis­sion is a crit­i­cal part of the Ex­ec­u­tive which makes the de­ci­sion to pros­e­cute.

"The In­tegri­ty Com­mis­sion failed to com­ply with the pro­vi­sions of the act un­der which it is con­sti­tut­ed when it did not ad­vise the Pres­i­dent to ap­point a tri­bunal to en­quire in­to Mr Pan­day's de­c­la­ra­tions. "Mr Pan­day was not giv­en an op­por­tu­ni­ty, to which he was en­ti­tled, to be heard by a prop­er­ly con­sti­tut­ed tri­bunal.

"The re­fer­ral of Mr Pan­day's de­c­la­ra­tions to the Di­rec­tor of Pub­lic Pros­e­cu­tions was there­fore ill con­ceived and it mat­ters not that the Di­rec­tor of Pub­lic Pros­e­cu­tions found there was suf­fi­cient ev­i­dence to lay the charges. " In the court's view, fail­ing to ac­cord Mr Pan­day due process un­der the act amounts to mis­con­duct on the part of the In­tegri­ty Com­mis­sion.

"The mis­con­duct by the In­tegri­ty Com­mis­sion was very se­ri­ous. The sub­stance of these charges was the 'fruit of the poi­son tree' which was the prod­uct of the In­tegri­ty Com­mis­sion's mis­con­duct. "Fur­ther­more, with­out the prod­uct of the mis­con­duct, these pro­ceed­ings would not have arisen. "It is the court's view that the mis­con­duct of the In­tegri­ty Com­mis­sion was so se­ri­ous that it would un­der­mine pub­lic con­fi­dence in the crim­i­nal jus­tice sys­tem and bring it in­to dis­re­pute.


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored