When the family and friends of Dana Seetahal, SC, marked the tenth anniversary of her execution, they lamented the length of time it has taken T&T’s judicial system to bring those accused of her murder to justice.
An examination of the timeline shows quite clearly at what point the delays occurred. In a statement, Director of Public Prosecutions Roger Gaspard said charges against the accused were laid on July 24, 2015, about 14 months after her murder.
The preliminary enquiry into her killing began on May 27, 2016, ten months after the charges were laid and the preliminary enquiry ended on July 23, 2020, four years and two months after it started.
That is a long time, but not unreasonable, according to the DPP, because of logistical arrangements and the presiding magistrate’s schedule. But it has been three years and ten months since the end of the preliminary enquiry. During that period, the committal bundle should have been delivered to the DPP’s office.
The delivery of this bundle, which is all of the documents, evidence and exhibits in the case, has now become part of an all-too-familiar, angry back and forth between the DPP and the Judiciary.
Last Friday, the day before the anniversary of Seetahal’s murder, the DPP said his office was waiting on the Judiciary to send the committal bundle.
On Saturday, the Judiciary hit back, saying the 8,100-page bundle was sent to the DPP’s office electronically in three parts on December 20 and 21, 2023 and January 5, 2024.
On Tuesday, the DPP quoted the Indictable Offences (Preliminary Enquiry) Act to support his contention that the documents should have been in hard copy.
The tenor of the DPP’s most recent response is that he is not accepting the electronic submission of the documents, although the act, at section 25 (1), only requires that the magistrate shall “without delay, transmit to the Director of Public Prosecutions” the documents from the court of first instance, without specifying that those documents must be in hard copy.
This is not the first time the DPP has clashed with the Judiciary over electronic documents submitted to his office.
During the opening of the 2020/2021 law term, Chief Justice Ivor Archie lamented the fact that the DPP’s office had only filed 12 indictments in the previous law term. In defending his performance then, Mr Gaspard noted that since May 2020, the Judiciary had rejected his attempts to file paper-based indictments in favour of electronic filings.
Why, then, should the DPP be surprised in May 2024 that the Judiciary still favours electronic filings?
Although, the Judiciary has not said so, its preference for electronic filings may be because of its interpretation of the law found in the Electronic Transactions Act, which is meant to give legal effect to electronic documents, electronic records, electronic signatures and electronic transactions.
Section 8 of the act, states, “Information or a record in electronic form or a data message shall not be denied legal effect, admissibility or enforceability solely on the grounds that it is—(a) rendered or made available in electronic form; or (b) not contained in the information, data message, or record in electronic form purporting to give rise to such legal effect but is referred to in that information, data message or record.”
Further, section 9 states, “The legal requirement that information, a record or a data message be in writing is satisfied where that information, record or data message is presented in electronic form ...”
The law seems clear. The confusion about what should apply is puzzling.