Derek Achong

Se­nior Re­porter

derek.achong@guardian.co.tt

A sus­pend­ed po­lice of­fi­cer has been giv­en the green light to sue the Of­fice of the Di­rec­tor of Pub­lic Pros­e­cu­tions (DPP) over its de­lay in pros­e­cut­ing for mis­be­hav­iour in pub­lic of­fice in re­la­tion to an al­leged in­ci­dent which oc­curred al­most 15 years ago. 

High Court Judge Frank Seep­er­sad yes­ter­day grant­ed 53-year-old Steve Sa­hadeo of Princes Town leave to pur­sue a ju­di­cial re­view case over the de­lay. 

Sa­hadeo was charged in Au­gust 2012 and re­leased on $50,000 bail. 

The charge re­lat­ed to an al­leged in­ci­dent on No­vem­ber 26, 2011, in which Sa­hadeo was ac­cused of forc­ing a cou­ple to with­draw $1,000 from an Au­to­mat­ic Teller Ma­chine (ATM) in Ch­aguara­mas.

Sa­hadeo, who was sus­pend­ed in 2016 and placed on three-quar­ters pay, was com­mit­ted to stand tri­al at the end of his pre­lim­i­nary in­quiry be­fore a mag­is­trate in 2019. 

In the law­suit, Sa­hadeo is chal­leng­ing the DPP Of­fice’s de­lay in fil­ing an in­dict­ment against him. The pro­ce­dure is re­quired for Sa­hadeo’s case to be list­ed for tri­al in the High Court. 

Con­duct­ing a pre­lim­i­nary analy­sis of Sa­hadeo’s case, Jus­tice Seep­er­sad said he had raised an ar­guable case with a re­al­is­tic prospect of suc­cess. 

“There is an ob­vi­ous pub­lic in­ter­est in en­sur­ing that de­ci­sions in re­la­tion to in­dict­ments are made with dis­cern­ment and alacrity,” Jus­tice Seep­er­sad said. 

“That in­ter­est is not con­fined to an ac­cused per­son as vic­tims, wit­ness­es, the pros­e­cu­tion, the po­lice and the wider so­ci­ety all have an in­ter­est in the time­ly dis­po­si­tion of crim­i­nal pro­ceed­ings,” he added. 

Jus­tice Seep­er­sad stat­ed that pub­lic con­fi­dence in the ad­min­is­tra­tion of jus­tice is not strength­ened when se­ri­ous al­le­ga­tions, such as the one against Sa­hadeo, re­main un­re­solved for years. 

“De­lay with­in the jus­tice sys­tem can­not sim­ply be­come nor­malised,” he said. 

While he stat­ed that he un­der­stood the de­mands placed on pros­e­cu­tors, he not­ed that this did not jus­ti­fy pro­longed in­ac­tion. 

Jus­tice Seep­er­sad di­rect­ed that his de­ci­sion be for­ward­ed to the DPP’s Of­fice when the case is filed and served, as he ex­pressed hope that the le­gal dis­pute could be set­tled with­out lit­i­ga­tion. 

“Where the es­sen­tial com­plaint con­cerns the ab­sence of a pros­e­cu­to­r­i­al de­ci­sion or pro­ce­dur­al pro­gres­sion, re­spon­si­ble pub­lic ad­min­is­tra­tion should, where the cir­cum­stances per­mit, be ca­pa­ble of re­solv­ing the un­der­ly­ing is­sue with­out re­quir­ing the Court to pro­nounce up­on it,” he said. 

“Ju­di­cial re­view should not have to be­come the mech­a­nism by which rou­tine move­ment with­in the crim­i­nal jus­tice process is se­cured,” he added. 

Through the law­suit, Sa­hadeo is seek­ing a se­ries of de­c­la­ra­tions over the de­lay and an or­der com­pelling the DPP’s Of­fice to make a de­ci­sion on his con­tin­ued pros­e­cu­tion.

Sa­hadeo is be­ing rep­re­sent­ed by Petron­il­la Bas­deo.