DEREK ACHONG

Se­nior Re­porter

derek.achong@guardian.co.tt

A High Court Judge has struck out a con­sti­tu­tion­al law­suit from the wife of Na­tion­al Trans­for­ma­tion Al­liance (NTA) Po­lit­i­cal Leader Gary Grif­fith over her phone be­ing al­leged­ly wire-tapped. 

De­liv­er­ing a de­ci­sion on Mon­day, High Court Judge Karen Reid up­held an ap­pli­ca­tion from the Of­fice of the At­tor­ney Gen­er­al to dis­miss Nicole Dy­er-Grif­fith’s case against it and for­mer act­ing po­lice com­mis­sion­er Mc­Don­ald Ja­cob.

In Jan­u­ary, Dy­er-Grif­fith filed the law­suit in which she claimed that her con­sti­tu­tion­al right to re­spect her pri­vate and fam­i­ly life was breached when her cell­phone was al­leged­ly wire-tapped us­ing the In­ter­cep­tion of Com­mu­ni­ca­tions Act and when the Fi­nan­cial In­tel­li­gence Unit of T&T be­gan an in­ves­ti­ga­tion in­to her fi­nances. 

The AG’s Of­fice filed an ap­pli­ca­tion in which it claimed that Dy­er-Grif­fith failed to pro­vide any ev­i­dence that her cell­phone had been wire-tapped as al­leged. 

In her af­fi­davit at­tached to the case, Dy­er-Grif­fith claimed that in Oc­to­ber, last year, her hus­band, who served as po­lice com­mis­sion­er be­tween 2018 and 2021, claimed that he re­ceived in­for­ma­tion that her num­ber was wire-tapped based on an al­leged di­rec­tive from Ja­cob. 

In her de­ci­sion, Jus­tice Reid agreed with the AG’s Of­fice.

“The claimant is, there­fore, re­ly­ing on a re­port made by a third par­ty of what an­oth­er third par­ty has al­leged­ly seen in a doc­u­ment or was told by yet an­oth­er third par­ty to prove as a fact that her tele­phone was tapped,” Jus­tice Reid said. 

“This is whol­ly in­ad­mis­si­ble,” she added. 

Jus­tice Reid not­ed that Dy­er-Grif­fith had to pro­vide co­gent ev­i­dence to but­tress her case for it to pro­ceed. 

“It is ab­solute­ly not for the claimant to sug­gest that she can sim­ply file her con­sti­tu­tion­al claim on the ba­sis of bare al­le­ga­tions of un­ver­i­fi­able hearsay and state that it is for the de­fen­dant to sup­ply the ev­i­dence nec­es­sary to prove or dis­prove her case,” Jus­tice Reid said. 

She al­so not­ed that Dy­er-Grif­fith should have got­ten her hus­band to pro­vide an af­fi­davit in which he pro­vid­ed the proof of the wire-tap­ping he claimed that he had. 

Jus­tice Reid al­so not­ed that Dy­er-Grif­fith could not raise al­le­ga­tions with re­spect to the al­leged fi­nan­cial in­ves­ti­ga­tion as she has a sep­a­rate pend­ing law­suit over it. 

In a pub­lic state­ment is­sued yes­ter­day, Dy­er-Grif­fith’s lawyer Mar­tin George claimed that his client filed the case af­ter he wrote to cur­rent Po­lice Com­mis­sion­er Er­la Hare­wood-Christo­pher seek­ing con­fir­ma­tion whether her phone had been wire-tapped and re­ceived no re­sponse. 

George al­so re­newed his call for Hare­wood-Christo­pher to dis­close the in­for­ma­tion de­spite the out­come of the case. 

Dy­er-Grif­fith was al­so rep­re­sent­ed by Ke­shavi Khoor­ban. Ja­cob was rep­re­sent­ed by Rishi Dass, SC, and Al­lan­na Ri­vas, while Gilbert Pe­ter­son, SC, Vanes­sa Gopaul, and Vin­cent Jar­dine rep­re­sent­ed the AG’s Of­fice.