A woman police constable (WPC), who was the State’s main witness against six of her colleagues who were eventually acquitted of murdering three friends from Moruga in 2011, has lost her case challenging a plea agreement she signed with the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).
Delivering a judgment, yesterday, High Court Judge Margaret Mohammed dismissed the lawsuit brought by WPC Nicole Clement against DPP Roger Gaspard, SC, and the Office of the Attorney General.
In the lawsuit, Clement’s lawyers contended that Gaspard breached his statutory duty by refusing to continue discussions over the resettlement of her and her family and their security arrangements under the Justice Protection Programme (JPP) after she signed the plea agreement in 2012.
Under the agreement, Gaspard agreed to discontinue the murder charges against Clement, who was initially jointly charged alongside her colleagues, and instead charge her with conspiring to pervert the course of justice in exchange for her testimony against them. The case against Clement is still pending and came up for hearing before High Court Judge Mauriceia Joseph last week.
Last year, her former colleagues Sgt Khemraj Sahadeo and PCs Renaldo Reviero, Glenn Singh, Roger Nicholas, Safraz Juman, and Antonio Ramadin went on trial for murdering Abigail Johnson, Kerron Eccles, and Alana Duncan.
The vehicle the friends were travelling in was shot at by the officers at the corner of Rochard Douglas Road and Gunness Trace in Barrackpore on July 22, 2011. The officers claimed that the trio shot at them, and they returned fire in self-defence.
Clement testified during the preliminary enquiry of the case and claimed that they were targeting Duncan’s common-law husband, Shumba James, who was known to have used the vehicle they were driving in and was allegedly wanted for a series of murders.
She claimed that Eccles and Duncan survived the initial volley of gunshots and were taken to a remote location off the M2 Ring Road in Woodland, where they were allegedly executed. However, when she was summoned to testify before High Court Judge Carla Brown-Antoine late last year, she refused to participate due to “safety and security” concerns.
She was deemed a hostile witness, and her testimony during the inquiry was instead read to the jury.
Clement was also quizzed about a statement she swore to last year in which she claimed to be the mastermind of the triple murder and falsely implicated her colleagues. On November 25, last year, all six officers were acquitted by the jury, which deliberated for less than an hour.
In dismissing Clement’s case, Justice Mohammed agreed with Gaspard’s lawyers that her case was academic.
She noted that Gaspard denied giving assurances to Clement’s then attorney over his willingness to continue negotiations after the agreement was signed. She pointed out that Clement did not present any evidence from the lawyer to challenge Gaspard’s claim.
She also noted that Gaspard stated that he had no power to compel the administration of the JPP as alleged. Justice Mohammed stated that Clement could not expect that Gaspard would be ordered to reopen negotiations after she failed to perform her requirements under the agreement by refusing to testify. “In those circumstances, it would not be in the administration of justice to grant the mandamus orders where the claimant breached the plea agreement,” she said.
She also criticised Clement for taking almost seven years after the agreement was signed to raise the issue of continued negotiations. Justice Mohammed also rejected her claim that her criminal case was delayed based on Gaspard’s reluctance to renegotiate.
“In my opinion, any prejudice to the claimant was caused by her actions, as she delayed for seven years from 2012 to 2019 before she requested that the first defendant enter into further plea agreement discussion,” she said. Justice Mohammed also refused to interpret Gaspard’s powers under the Plea Agreement Act.
“Any interpretation of the Plea Agreement Act will be limited to the facts in the instant action, which will be of limited benefit to the First Defendant (Gaspard) or other persons who rely on the provisions of the said legislation, which may be obiter or persuasive but not binding,” she said.
Despite the outcome of the case, Justice Mohammed still ordered the State to pay for the work done by Clement’s lawyers prior to the case going to trial based on delays in responding to their pre-action protocol letters threatening the case. Clement also filed a separate lawsuit against the Ministry of National Security over a decision to remove her security detail when she was in a safe house in the JPP.
When the case came up for hearing after his colleagues were freed last year, Justice Frank Seepersad also dismissed it for being academic.
Clement was represented by Michael Rooplal, Kristy Mohan, and Vishan Girwar. Ian Benjamin, SC, Keston McQuilkin, and Nalini Jagnarine represented Gaspard. The AG’s Office was represented by Douglas Mendes, SC, Chase Pegus, Sanjiv Sookoo, Brent James, and Justay Guerra.