At­tor­neys rep­re­sent­ing a woman at the cen­tre of a con­tro­ver­sial video are ac­cus­ing a cou­ple of in­tim­i­da­tion af­ter she was served with a pre-ac­tion pro­to­col let­ter re­port­ed­ly by po­lice of­fi­cers. 

In a let­ter to the cou­ple on Tues­day, at­tor­neys Jer­ry and Ter­ry Boy­er said their client is now fear­ful af­ter be­ing served by armed po­lice of­fi­cers in full uni­form. 

The let­ter was in re­sponse to a pre-ac­tion pro­to­col let­ter sent by a po­lice of­fi­cer and his wife on Mon­day af­ter they gained no­to­ri­ety when a record­ed con­fronta­tion of his al­leged in­fi­deli­ty went vi­ral. 

The of­fi­cer, as­signed to a a po­lice sta­tion in cen­tral Trinidad, is­sued the let­ter, which claimed that the video was sent on­ly to the Boy­ers’ client, and they have foren­sic proof of such. 

In re­sponse the at­tor­neys are re­quest­ing, in keep­ing with the Civ­il Pro­ceed­ings Rules: a copy of the foren­sic analy­sis re­port; the de­tails of the foren­sic an­a­lyst who con­duct­ed the ex­am­i­na­tion in­clu­sive of his qual­i­fi­ca­tions; fur­ther and bet­ter par­tic­u­lars of their client's al­leged be­hav­iour amount­ing to ha­rass­ment; and screen grabs of all ex­changes be­tween both par­ties via so­cial me­dia and tele­phone. 

Re­gard­ing the is­sue of in­tim­i­da­tion, the Boy­ers claimed the man and his wife’s le­gal let­ter was de­liv­ered by po­lice of­fi­cers as­signed to the sta­tion he works.  

“Un­doubt­ed­ly, this is an act of util­is­ing State re­sources for civ­il pur­suits. Our client and her fam­i­ly are now fear­ful due to the in­tim­i­dat­ing tac­tics de­ployed... We de­mand that the in­tim­i­dat­ing be­hav­iour to­wards our client and her fam­i­ly be dis­con­tin­ued im­me­di­ate­ly.” 

On Sat­ur­day at­tor­ney Roshi Balka­ran is­sued a pre-ac­tion let­ter on be­half of her clients re­quest­ing an un­qual­i­fied apol­o­gy, im­me­di­ate re­moval of the post and an un­der­tak­ing that it would not be re­peat­ed. Fail­ing this, she not­ed that an in­junc­tion of their re­quests was not ac­ced­ed to. 

Balka­ran ac­cused the Boy­ers’ client of pur­pose­ly seek­ing to tar­nish her clients af­ter the of­fi­cer re­fused her ad­vances when the record­ing was leaked.