JavaScript is disabled in your web browser or browser is too old to support JavaScript. Today almost all web pages contain JavaScript, a scripting programming language that runs on visitor's web browser. It makes web pages functional for specific purposes and if disabled for some reason, the content or the functionality of the web page can be limited or unavailable.

Friday, July 25, 2025

Judge rules raids on Express unlawful

by

Derek Achong
1653 days ago
20210114

High Court judge Frank Seep­er­sad has ruled that two re­cent raids on the Trinidad Ex­press news­pa­per, over the pub­li­ca­tion of re­ports on a fi­nan­cial in­ves­ti­ga­tion in­to a for­mer high rank­ing po­lice of­fi­cer, were un­con­sti­tu­tion­al and un­law­ful.

De­liv­er­ing a writ­ten judge­ment yes­ter­day morn­ing, Seep­er­sad up­held a law­suit brought by One Caribbean Me­dia (OCM) which pub­lish­es the news­pa­per.

While Seep­er­sad not­ed that free­dom of the press is an en­shrined con­sti­tu­tion­al right, he ac­cept­ed that search war­rants could be ob­tained against me­dia com­pa­nies and prac­ti­tion­ers in cer­tain cir­cum­stances as it is not ab­solute.

How­ev­er, he stat­ed that in the case, of­fi­cers of the Fi­nan­cial In­ves­ti­ga­tions Branch (FIB) did not pro­vide per­ti­nent in­for­ma­tion on their in­ves­ti­ga­tion, which could have been in­de­pen­dent­ly as­sessed by the Jus­tice of the Peace be­fore she is­sued the search war­rants.

“There were er­rors in both war­rants as to the na­ture of the of­fence, crit­i­cal in­for­ma­tion as to the pos­si­bil­i­ty that rel­e­vant in­for­ma­tion could have been ob­tained by the Fi­nan­cial In­tel­li­gence Unit (FIU) or the FIB were not dis­closed and there was ob­vi­ous un­cer­tain­ty as to the statu­to­ry pro­vi­sion up­on which the pro­posed in­ves­ti­ga­tion was premised,” Seep­er­sad said.

He al­so not­ed that the process em­ployed was flawed and dis­pro­por­tion­ate.

Seep­er­sad sug­gest­ed a Par­lia­men­tary re­view of the leg­is­la­tion gov­ern­ing the grant of search war­rants, es­pe­cial­ly for the me­dia, whose work he not­ed is fun­da­men­tal to the de­mo­c­ra­t­ic process.

He said that legal­ly trained per­sons such as mag­is­trates and High Court Judges should be ap­proached for such war­rants as op­posed to a Jus­tices of the Peace as they would be bet­ter suit­ed to con­sid­er le­gal and con­sti­tu­tion­al im­pli­ca­tions.

“The nec­es­sary bal­anc­ing ex­er­cise re­quired an in­formed and mea­sured de­ter­mi­na­tion as to whether the pub­lic in­ter­est in iden­ti­fy­ing and pros­e­cut­ing the jour­nal­ist’s source was of greater im­por­tance than the pub­lic’s right to know that a se­ri­ous in­ves­ti­ga­tion was loom­ing over the head of a very se­nior po­lice of­fi­cer es­pe­cial­ly when one con­sid­ers the fact that an in­ves­ti­ga­tion had to be un­der­tak­en by ju­nior po­lice of­fi­cers,” Seep­er­sad said.

He al­so ques­tioned whether the “tip­ping off” of­fence un­der the Pro­ceeds of Crime Act, un­der which the in­ves­ti­ga­tion was launched, was ever in­tend­ed for the me­dia as not­ed that the po­lice nev­er con­sid­ered the com­pa­ny and its jour­nal­ists as sus­pects.

“In this so­ci­ety, where the pub­lic’s trust and con­fi­dence in pub­lic in­sti­tu­tions in­clud­ing the po­lice ser­vice, is low, pub­lic no­ti­fi­ca­tion as to the fact of an in­ves­ti­ga­tion or po­ten­tial in­ves­ti­ga­tion, has the po­ten­tial to “pres­sure” the rel­e­vant au­thor­i­ties in­to tak­ing de­ci­sive ac­tion there­by en­sur­ing that sen­si­tive in­ves­ti­ga­tions es­pe­cial­ly those which may in­volve se­nior of­fi­cials are ac­tive­ly and thor­ough­ly pur­sued,” Seep­er­sad said.

In his judge­ment, Seep­er­sad ex­pressed dis­qui­et over the fact the war­rants were ob­tained and ex­e­cut­ed when Po­lice Com­mis­sion­er Gary Grif­fith was out of the coun­try and for­mer act­ing Deputy Po­lice Com­mis­sion­er (DCP) Ir­win Hack­shaw, who was the sub­ject of the re­ports, was act­ing in his (Grif­fith) role.

“Ul­ti­mate­ly, there should al­ways be a com­mit­ment to en­sure that per­son­al agen­das do not dic­tate pub­lic process, nor should pub­lic of­fice be used as a weapon to ef­fect reper­cus­sions up­on those whom swords may have been crossed,” Seep­er­sad said.

While Seep­er­sad or­dered that the com­pa­ny should re­ceive com­pen­sa­tion for the breach­es of its rights, he did not per­form the as­sess­ment and re­ferred the task to a High Court Mas­ter to do at a lat­er date.

Seep­er­sad al­so or­dered the T&T Po­lice Ser­vice (TTPS) to cov­er the com­pa­ny’s le­gal costs for pur­su­ing the law­suit.

The com­pa­nies were rep­re­sent­ed by Sophia Chote, SC, Pe­ter Carter, Vah­ni Se­u­nath and Dana-Marie Smith, while Fyard Ho­sein, SC, Rishi Dass, Kendra Mark-Gor­don and Ka­dine Matthew rep­re­sent­ed the State. The Me­dia As­so­ci­a­tion of T&T (MATT), which was al­lowed to en­ter the case, was rep­re­sent­ed by Ria Mo­hammed-David­son and Michael Rooplal.


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored