Commissioner of Police Erla Harewood-Christopher has assigned an investigator to probe whether there is sufficient evidence to charge the Paria Fuel Trading Company or any official with manslaughter due to gross negligence in the deaths of five Land and Marine Construction Services (LMSC) divers in a 2022 accident.
This after Director of Public Prosecutions Roger Gaspard considered the report of the Commission of Enquiry into the Paria diving tragedy and determined that the only possible non-regulatory criminal offence which could have been committed was manslaughter by gross negligence.
LMCS employees Fyzal Kurban, Kazim Ali Jr, Yusuf Henry and Rishi Nagassar died tragically after becoming trapped inside a Paria pipeline in the Pointe-a-Pierre harbour on February 25, 2022.
The CoE, chaired by Jerome Lynch, KC, had found there were sufficient grounds to conclude that Paria’s negligence could be characterised as gross negligence and consequently criminal. The commissioners recommended that Gaspard consider charging Paria with what is commonly known as corporate manslaughter.
However, in a release yesterday, Gaspard said unlike the United Kingdom, there was no statutory intervention in T&T to create an offence known as corporate manslaughter.
Gaspard said he met Harewood-Christopher on May 8 and wrote to her on May 10, advising her that the T&T Police Service (TTPS) should commence a criminal investigation to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to charge any individual or corporate entity with manslaughter by gross negligence.
“An investigation is required, as the commission’s report does not itself constitute evidence, and it is materially deficient in proving all the necessary elements of the offence to be investigated. I have been advised by the commissioner that she has appointed an officer to lead the investigation,” Gaspard said in the release.
In response to Gaspard’s statement, Paria Fuel said it would now seek the appropriate legal advice and would be guided by the advice received with respect to any investigations going forward.
Meanwhile, LMCS said Paria must own up to its responsibility and stop playing games.
In a response to Paria’s media release on Monday, which stated that a lack of information from LMCS was frustrating its effort to process compensation claims submitted by the divers’ families, LMCS attorney Dinesh Rambally said the company remained committed to bona fide efforts, involving all stakeholders, towards a considered and reasonable resolution of the matter.
However, he said, LMCS believes that Paria can achieve a prompt and fair resolution if it notifies all stakeholders of its full acceptance of responsibility for the tragic accident.
“This would certainly facilitate a considered and balanced approach. Parties would then be able to devote their time and resources to ensuring that those tragically affected are properly compensated. As a matter of fact, the affected surviving diver and families of deceased divers may be able to access structured interim payments on account of damages, psychiatric and/or medical care, expert reports and legal costs,” Rambally said.
He said LMCS preferred to refrain from commenting on the matters raised in the media release, hoping that parties would not become unnecessarily polarised, and instead work in the interest of the sole surviving diver and the deceased divers’ families.
“Nonetheless, LMCS is constrained to point out that Paria’s communiqué is patently self-serving. It is clearly attempting to deflect from its responsibility by sidestepping the elephants in the room, or public domain: its breach of its duty and overall legal culpability,” Rambally said.
He said Paria failed to mention “without prejudice,” correspondence to and from LMCS together with several other issues.
Following the commission’s report, pressing issues including Workmen’s Compensation claims, insurer’s liability, OSHA complaints and criminal complaints remain pending.
“In any event, the “without prejudice” stipulation, expressly introduced by Paria’s attorneys, means that a certain privilege attaches to the contents of any negotiations which would encourage the parties to settle their differences rather than litigate them to a finish. This means avoiding a protracted legal battle, but also potential legal consequences that might follow from the Lynch report.”