Geisha Kow­lessar

Pamela El­der, SC, lawyer for At­tor­ney Gen­er­al Anand Ram­lo­gan and Min­is­ter of Lo­cal Gov­ern­ment and Works and In­fra­struc­ture Su­ruj Ram­bachan, says her clients are not sus­pects in the e-mail probe and there­fore had a right to refuse to sub­mit their elec­tron­ic de­vices to the po­lice.On Tues­day, Ram­lo­gan and Ram­bachan opt­ed not to hand over their com­put­ers and oth­er de­vices, say­ing they feared a breach of their con­sti­tu­tion­al right to pri­va­cy.

In rep­re­sent­ing their clients, El­der and at­tor­ney Lar­ry Lal­la met with in­ves­ti­ga­tors at the Po­lice Ad­min­is­tra­tion Build­ing in Port-of-Spain on Tues­day for al­most three hours.Dur­ing the meet­ing with po­lice in­ves­ti­ga­tors, Lal­la, a for­mer High Court judge, and El­der ex­pressed con­cern that dig­i­tal ev­i­dence might be com­pro­mised by ac­ci­dents or al­ter­ations which could af­fect the con­clu­sion of the probe.

El­der said yes­ter­day that be­cause her clients were vol­un­tar­i­ly as­sist­ing the po­lice, they were not ob­lig­at­ed to hand over their com­put­ers, cell­phones or any oth­er elec­tron­ic de­vices the po­lice might ask for."If the per­son is a sus­pect, then dif­fer­ent prin­ci­ples would ap­ply," said El­der."If you are mere­ly as­sist­ing the po­lice in an in­ves­ti­ga­tion, then in that case dif­fer­ent prin­ci­ples would ob­vi­ous­ly ap­ply.

"Not be­cause an al­le­ga­tion is made it au­to­mat­i­cal­ly falls with­in the ter­mi­nol­o­gy of 'sus­pect.' For ex­am­ple, if an anony­mous let­ter is writ­ten mak­ing al­le­ga­tions against X, would X be­come a sus­pect?"Main­tain­ing that her clients were not sus­pect­ed of wrong­do­ing, El­der said there was al­so no "rea­son­able cause" to be­lieve that ei­ther Ram­lo­gan or Ram­bachan was guilty.

She said there was al­so no ba­sis for a search war­rant to be is­sued so that the po­lice could seize what they re­quest­ed."It has to be made clear my clients are not sus­pect­ed of any wrong­do­ing," El­der said."All we have is a type­writ­ten doc­u­ment which is equiv­a­lent to an anony­mous let­ter, so there would be no ba­sis for a war­rant...That would be wrong and op­pres­sive."An­oth­er Se­nior Coun­sel al­so agreed there was no ba­sis for Ram­lo­gan or Ram­bachan to hand over their de­vices to the po­lice.

Dana See­ta­hal said yes­ter­day: "Peo­ple don't have to vol­un­tar­i­ly give over any­thing to the po­lice. In the ab­sence of a search war­rant, peo­ple have no rights to peo­ple's prop­er­ty."See­ta­hal said she did not want to speak on specifics of the case but would com­ment in gen­er­al terms.On the cir­cum­stances of when a search war­rant could be ap­plied, she said: "A search war­rant can be ap­plied in the in­ves­ti­ga­tion of an of­fence in terms of its ev­i­den­tial val­ue."

Say­ing she did not know the specifics of the po­lice in­ves­ti­ga­tion, See­ta­hal said she could not say whether the po­lice would be like­ly to is­sue a search war­rant dur­ing the probe."I know they are in­ves­ti­gat­ing e-mails. I don't know the stage they have reached or whether they are now in­ves­ti­gat­ing an of­fence. That is some­thing dif­fer­ent," she added.

The e-mails, which were pre­sent­ed in Par­lia­ment by Op­po­si­tion Leader Dr Kei­th Row­ley on May 20, al­lege ef­forts to un­der­mine the ju­di­cia­ry, the of­fice of the Di­rec­tor of Pub­lic Pros­e­cu­tions (DPP) and the me­dia.Prime Min­is­ter Kam­la Per­sad-Bisses­sar and her col­leagues have de­nied any knowl­edge of the e-mails, but the PM man­dat­ed act­ing Com­mis­sion­er of Po­lice Stephen Williams to probe the com­plaint. Williams in turn ap­point­ed Richard­son to head a six-mem­ber in­ves­ti­gat­ing team.

Per­sad-Bisses­sar al­so vis­it­ed Richars­don and his unit on Tues­day for an in­ter­view, with her lawyer Is­rael Khan, SC. She, how­ev­er, hand­ed in her elec­tron­ic de­vices, in­clud­ing a lap­top and the cen­tral pro­cess­ing unit (CPU) of a com­put­er.

No change in probe

Lead in­ves­ti­ga­tor in­to the e-mail probe, Deputy Po­lice Com­mis­sion­er Mervyn Richard­son said yes­ter­day there was no change in the probe.He said the po­lice were still await­ing word from the US-based com­pa­ny Google and once that was re­ceived, a key part of the in­ves­ti­ga­tion would be com­plet­ed.Say­ing he was pleased with the progress of the in­ves­ti­ga­tion, Richard­son added: "The in­ves­ti­ga­tion is on­go­ing. Be­tween yes­ter­day (Tues­day) to now, the sit­u­a­tion re­mains the same."

"I know they are in­ves­ti­gat­ing e-mails. I don't know the stage they have reached or whether they are now in­ves­ti­gat­ing an of­fence. That is some­thing dif­fer­ent," she added.The e-mails, which were pre­sent­ed in Par­lia­ment by Op­po­si­tion Leader Dr Kei­th Row­ley on May 20, al­lege ef­forts to un­der­mine the ju­di­cia­ry, the of­fice of the Di­rec­tor of Pub­lic Pros­e­cu­tions (DPP) and the me­dia.

Prime Min­is­ter Kam­la Per­sad-Bisses­sar and her col­leagues have de­nied any knowl­edge of the e-mails, but the PM man­dat­ed act­ing Com­mis­sion­er of Po­lice Stephen Williams to probe the com­plaint. Williams in turn ap­point­ed Richard­son to head a six-mem­ber in­ves­ti­gat­ing team.Per­sad-Bisses­sar al­so vis­it­ed Richars­don and his unit on Tues­day for an in­ter­view, with her lawyer Is­rael Khan, SC. She, how­ev­er, hand­ed in her elec­tron­ic de­vices, in­clud­ing a lap­top and the cen­tral pro­cess­ing unit (CPU) of a com­put­er.

No change in probe

Lead in­ves­ti­ga­tor in­to the e-mail probe, Deputy Po­lice Com­mis­sion­er Mervyn Richard­son said yes­ter­day there was no change in the probe.He said the po­lice were still await­ing word from the US-based com­pa­ny Google and once that was re­ceived, a key part of the in­ves­ti­ga­tion would be com­plet­ed.