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.

Wednesday, February 26, 2025

Report into missing file: Solicitor General Dept, Chief State Solicitor ‘incompetent’

by

35 days ago
20250122
File: Attorney General Reginald Armour shows a copy of a file which went missing to members of the media during a press conference at the Attorney General Office, Government Plaza, Richmond Street, Port-of-Spain, in February.

File: Attorney General Reginald Armour shows a copy of a file which went missing to members of the media during a press conference at the Attorney General Office, Government Plaza, Richmond Street, Port-of-Spain, in February.

KERWIN PIERRE

Se­nior Re­porter

akash.sama­roo@cnc3.co.tt

The So­lic­i­tor Gen­er­al’s De­part­ment and the Chief State So­lic­i­tor are be­ing de­scribed as “in­ept” and “in­com­pe­tent” as it re­lates to a miss­ing case file.

The dis­ap­pear­ance of the file led to nine men, who were for­mer­ly ac­cused of the kid­nap­ping and mur­der of busi­ness­woman Vin­dra Naipaul-Cool­man, be­ing award­ed a de­fault judg­ment of over $20 mil­lion for ma­li­cious pros­e­cu­tion.

The in­ves­tiga­tive team has since con­clud­ed that the file, which was sub­se­quent­ly dis­cov­ered in an un­oc­cu­pied of­fice was placed there de­lib­er­ate­ly and has even called for the trans­fer of staff who “failed their du­ty to the State.”

Rec­om­men­da­tions are there­fore be­ing made to con­sid­er whether the act­ing So­lic­i­tor Gen­er­al (SG) is the right per­son for the job, the in­stal­la­tion of se­cu­ri­ty cam­eras at the SG’s of­fice, and the trans­fer­ring of staff at­tached to the SG’s De­part­ment for “fail­ing their du­ty to the State.”

Af­ter al­most a year and a half since Jus­tice Stan­ley John and Pamela Schullera-Hinds hand­ed it over to the At­tor­ney Gen­er­al, the fi­nal re­port was made pub­lic.

Lay­ing the re­port in Par­lia­ment yes­ter­day, At­tor­ney Gen­er­al Regi­nald Ar­mour said, “The in­ves­tiga­tive re­port is il­lu­mi­nat­ing and speaks for it­self; I there­fore need say lit­tle about it.”

The time­line

The re­port of­fered a time­line of events as it per­tains to the file which was even­tu­al­ly found in an un­oc­cu­pied of­fice.

It said, “The claim was re­ceived on 22 June 2020 and signed for by a State Coun­sel at the of­fice of the SG. It was re­ceived and signed for by State Coun­sel Ms Na­toya Moore.”

The re­port said on that very day it was for­ward­ed to the Ser­vice Clerk. And the fol­low­ing day it was per­son­al­ly de­liv­ered to the SG’s Reg­istry De­part­ment.

The claim form was then record­ed as re­ceived and there was ev­i­dence to show that it was pre­pared on June 23, 2020, and placed for trans­mis­sion to the SG’s De­part­ment via mes­sen­ger.

How­ev­er, the re­port went on to say, “All the files that were re­ceived at the Reg­istry of the SG’s De­part­ment (on the 17th floor) on June 22, 2020, were tak­en to the SG’s Sec­re­tari­at on the 18th floor and record­ed in the “In­com­ing Reg­is­ter” by Ms Yvette John that is save and ex­cept for file CV2020-01243.”

CV2020-01243 is the file that went miss­ing.

The re­port said, “There is no record­ed ac­tiv­i­ty with re­spect to CV2020-01243 dur­ing the pe­ri­od 22 June 2020 to Au­gust 2021 save and ex­cept for emails sent to Sean Julien (CSS) by Coun­sel for the Claimants.”

The in­ves­tiga­tive team would have then in­ter­viewed for­mer SG Car­ol Her­nan­dez on March 1, 2023.

“She stat­ed that she first be­came aware of this mat­ter on 6 Ju­ly 2021 via an email from Sean Julien (CSS) who in­formed her that an Ap­pli­ca­tion for De­fault Judg­ment had been en­tered by the Claimants,” the re­port read.

On Au­gust 17, 2021, Her­nan­dez re­quest­ed the file from the reg­istry but was in­formed it could not be lo­cat­ed.

How­ev­er, the re­port said on Au­gust 19, 2021, the file had been found on the desk of the then deputy SG Dun­can Byram, who died.

On Au­gust 20, 2021, Her­nan­dez was in­formed that the file had been lo­cat­ed on Byram’s desk which at the time was un­oc­cu­pied save for files stacked in box­es.

How­ev­er, it was not un­til May 18, 2022, that a tem­po­rary file was re­con­sti­tut­ed.

The re­port said in an in­ter­view with Act­ing SG Kar­lene Seenath on Au­gust 4, 2022, “She as­signed the re­con­sti­tut­ed file to (now) Jus­tice Karen Reid-Bal­lan­tyne then a Deputy SG, to take con­duct of the mat­ter on be­half of the Of­fice of the At­tor­ney Gen­er­al at the hear­ing of the As­sess­ment of Dam­ages.”

The re­port added, “The as­sess­ment was heard be­fore Mas­ter Martha Alexan­der on the 4th of No­vem­ber 2022. At the hear­ing, the court heard sub­mis­sions from at­tor­neys for both the Claimants and the AG and re­served its judg­ment.”

How­ev­er, the re­port in­di­cat­ed that there were al­so soft copies of the doc­u­ments that the SG could have ac­cessed.

The re­port stat­ed the miss­ing doc­u­ments were filed elec­tron­i­cal­ly in the High Court Reg­istry on May 29, 2020.

It con­tin­ued, “Our in­ves­ti­ga­tions re­vealed that no re­quest was ever made by the Of­fice of the So­lic­i­tor Gen­er­al (SG) at any time for copies of the doc­u­ments filed dur­ing the pe­ri­od that the mat­ter was on­go­ing.

“Had the then SG made such a re­quest of the Reg­is­trar of the Supreme Court of Trinidad and To­ba­go, as ad­vised by him, copies would have been for­ward­ed forth­with.”

‘An­oth­er clar­i­on cry

for an over­haul of

the in­ter­nal sys­tems’

The in­ves­tiga­tive team con­clud­ed, “This, in our opin­ion, demon­strates that all the nec­es­sary steps were not tak­en by the then SG to ob­tain a du­pli­cate file on re­al­is­ing that the file was miss­ing.

“Had that been done and the SG’s de­part­ment had ac­tive­ly par­tic­i­pat­ed in the claim for ma­li­cious pros­e­cu­tion, there is every like­li­hood that the out­come of the mat­ter would have been sig­nif­i­cant­ly dif­fer­ent and may not have reached the stage of as­sess­ment of dam­ages.

“This demon­strates the lack of ini­tia­tive with­in the civ­il law de­part­ment and re­in­forces the need for ur­gent re­form.”

In its find­ings, the in­ves­tiga­tive team said, “In­ep­ti­tude and in­com­pe­tence are just one of the many de­scrip­tions that char­ac­terise the De­part­ment of the SG and the CSS in the con­duct of this mat­ter.”

The team found that in­ter­est was on­ly shown by the act­ing SG up­on com­ple­tion of the hear­ing of the mat­ter and the Or­der made by the court on Jan­u­ary 30, 2023.

Not­ing that COVID-19 would have im­pact­ed ser­vices, the re­port, how­ev­er, said, “That is no ex­cuse for the to­tal fail­ure to pro­tect the in­ter­ests of the State in this mat­ter. Noth­ing was done to de­fend the ac­tion nor was any de­ci­sive ac­tion tak­en by the of­fice of the SG to seek to avoid the mak­ing of the fi­nal or­der for dam­ages.”

It al­so crit­i­cised the CSS for not en­sur­ing that the SG’s De­part­ment was made aware of the first court hear­ing in Jan­u­ary 2021.

Her­nan­dez came un­der fire in the re­port for fail­ing to take ac­tion to find out why the file had been placed on her deputy’s desk in an emp­ty of­fice and to as­cer­tain the cir­cum­stances sur­round­ing its dis­ap­pear­ance and sub­se­quent dis­cov­ery.

The file on Mr Byram’s desk was said to be the on­ly one there and no one else had been al­lo­cat­ed the emp­ty of­fice space.

“Why, there­fore the file was put there can on­ly be ex­plained as a de­lib­er­ate act on the part of some­one,” the re­port said.

Act­ing SG Kar­lene Seenath was al­so crit­i­cised for hav­ing an al­leged non­cha­lant ap­proach to the mat­ter even when it be­came ap­par­ent that the court was like­ly to make a sub­stan­tial award.

The team ques­tioned if Seenath was the right per­son for the job.

The re­port al­so rec­om­mend­ed the in­stal­la­tion of se­cu­ri­ty cam­eras at the reg­istry of the SG’s de­part­ment, the im­me­di­ate ap­point­ment of a da­ta en­try clerk, prop­er back­ground checks on all staff re­cruit­ed to the SG’s De­part­ment and the trans­fer of mem­bers of staff as­signed to the SG who have “failed in their du­ty to the State.”

In con­clu­sion, the re­port said, “This en­tire sor­ry episode is an­oth­er clar­i­on cry for an over­haul of the in­ter­nal sys­tems in the Of­fice of the So­lic­i­tor Gen­er­al and the Chief State So­lic­i­tor.”

In Jan­u­ary 2023, High Court Mas­ter Martha Alexan­der as­sessed the com­pen­sa­tion for the group af­ter they re­ceived a de­fault judg­ment over the fail­ure of the AG’s of­fice to de­fend their ma­li­cious pros­e­cu­tion case.

Ar­mour sub­se­quent­ly re­vealed that the case was un­de­fend­ed as the file went miss­ing af­ter be­ing served to his of­fice.

Ar­mour ap­point­ed for­mer High Court judge Stan­ley John and re­tired as­sis­tant com­mis­sion­er of po­lice (ACP) Pamela Schullera-Hinds to probe what took place and make rec­om­men­da­tions to pre­vent a re­cur­rence.

No crim­i­nal or dis­ci­pli­nary ac­tion

How­ev­er, the re­port did not rec­om­mend dis­ci­pli­nary ac­tion against any­one. 

“Our in­ves­ti­ga­tion has not found any facts, cir­cum­stances or ev­i­dence, which in our opin­ion, may give rise to, show or es­tab­lish the com­mis­sion of any dis­ci­pli­nary of­fence by any of­fice/of­fi­cer in the Ju­di­cial and Le­gal Ser­vice re­lat­ing to the man­age­ment and con­duct of CV2020-01243,” the re­port said.

It added that the in­ves­ti­ga­tion did not “show or es­tab­lish the com­mis­sion of any crim­i­nal or fraud­u­lent act.”

How­ev­er, the re­port rec­om­mend­ed sev­er­al or­gan­i­sa­tion­al changes with­in the Civ­il Law De­part­ment, which in­cludes the SG De­part­ment.

They in­clude, “Civ­il Law Cham­bers, which should be a merg­er of what is now the So­lic­i­tor Gen­er­al’s De­part­ment and the Of­fice of the Chief State So­lic­i­tor for­mal­ly called the Civ­il Law De­part­ment in keep­ing with the Act.”

Yes­ter­day in Par­lia­ment, Ar­mour said the “change process is al­ready un­der­way.”

He de­fend­ed hold­ing on to the re­port for so long.

Ar­mour said, “It was my grave con­cern that, had this re­port been made pub­lic be­fore now, my of­fice may have be­come em­broiled in lit­i­ga­tion.”

Ar­mour said the Par­lia­ment need­ed to pass Act No 14 of 2024, The Mis­cel­la­neous Pro­vi­sions (Ju­di­cial and Le­gal Ser­vice) be­fore the re­port was made pub­lic as the act serves to ad­dress some of the short­falls point­ed out in the re­port.

On De­cem­ber 2023, High Court Judge Joan Charles up­held an ap­pli­ca­tion to set aside the de­fault judg­ment she grant­ed in Jan­u­ary 2021 as well as the sub­se­quent as­sess­ment of dam­ages done by Mas­ter Alexan­der. 

The group’s lawyers filed an ap­peal chal­leng­ing the de­ci­sion. A rul­ing is yet to be de­liv­ered.


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored