Richard Lord

Jus­tice Min­is­ter Her­bert Vol­ney says since 2005 his phone has been tapped. Vol­ney dis­closed that in his con­tri­bu­tion sup­port­ing the In­ter­cep­tion of Com­mu­ni­ca­tions Bill 2010 in the House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives on Fri­day night. De­bate on the bill, which was pre­sent­ed by Na­tion­al Se­cu­ri­ty Min­is­ter Brigadier John Sandy, was sus­pend­ed short­ly af­ter mid­night af­ter a marathon ten hours. Vol­ney re­called his promise to the elec­torate in the May 24 gen­er­al elec­tion when he said he would cut off the head of the ser­pent.

He said on Fri­day: "I dealt with the head of that side (point­ing to the Op­po­si­tion bench­es); the ser­pent was cut and that is why to­day they are on that side." He told Speak­er Wade Mark that it was un­for­tu­nate and with great re­gret "that you have placed me in a seat where I have to look at what is left of the ser­pent. "Every­day I see a head­less ser­pent, he had lost his head–the Mem­ber for San Fer­nan­do East (Patrick Man­ning)." Vol­ney went on to quote a news­pa­per re­port, pub­lished pri­or to the May 24 gen­er­al elec­tion, which quot­ed Man­ning as say­ing, "Vol­ney was be­ing ob­served by se­cu­ri­ty forces."

He said when he was about to re­sign as a judge to con­test the elec­tions the con­tents of a pri­vate con­ver­sa­tion with Chief Jus­tice Ivor Archie were pub­lished in the news­pa­pers. Vol­ney said he had to apol­o­gise to Pres­i­dent George Maxwell Richards for the in­ci­dent. He said he felt he was "a marked man" and an "en­e­my of the State" be­cause he had point­ed out to the then Gov­ern­ment the need for cer­tain changes in the crim­i­nal jus­tice sys­tem for it to be more ef­fec­tive.

Vol­ney told leg­is­la­tors: "That cell (phone) had been the sub­ject of in­ter­cep­tion dur­ing those last days of the then PNM Gov­ern­ment. That was the PNM's way of deal­ing with their en­e­mies." "There is noth­ing in this bill that law abid­ing cit­i­zens need to fear." Vol­ney said the bill pro­vid­ed checks and bal­ances for those who are em­pow­ered to in­ter­cept per­sons pri­vate com­mu­ni­ca­tions. He said it al­so pro­vid­ed for a judge of the High Court to grant a war­rant to an au­tho­rised per­son for the in­ter­cep­tion of a com­mu­ni­ca­tion.