The Law Association of Trinidad and Tobago (LATT) has called on public office holders and members of the public to refrain from making public statements on cases currently receiving judicial attention.
In a press release issued yesterday, the association’s secretary Shankar Bidaisee referred to newspaper reports on Prime Minister Dr Keith Rowley allegedly commenting on a case brought by former murder accused Akili Charles against the Office of the Attorney General.
“The Honourable Prime Minister is reported to have suggested that if the Appellant is successful in his appeal it would result in the floodgates to crime and violence being thrown wide open,” Bidaisee said.
“He (Rowley) is further reported to have stated that if the law is “changed” the possibility exists that, in this land of murder and mayhem where so many tens or possibly hundreds of witnesses are being killed, an accused person charged with murder would get bail and come out, thereby negatively impacting on the willingness of witnesses to come forward,” he added.
He suggested that if the statements were indeed made by Rowley, it would amount to an infringement of the sub judice rule.
“The public is reminded that the sub judice rule restricts persons from making statements about matters, that are under judicial consideration, that have the potential to influence the outcome of a case,” Bidaisee said.
He said that the rule is critical to maintaining judicial independence in any democratic society.
“Whist it is perfectly lawful to criticise the Judiciary even robustly so, too often the LATT is called upon to caution politicians about public utterance which often borders on or may amount to contempt of court,” Bidaisee said.
In the lawsuit, Charles’ lawyers are contending that this country’s colonial age legislation on the issue should be struck down as was done in recent cases over this country’s buggery and sedition laws.
They are claiming that the bail for murder should not be automatic but should be decided by judicial officers, as the blanket denial of bail, breached their judicial discretion under the doctrine of the separation of powers.
After the lawsuit was dismissed in March, Charles appealed. The Court of Appeal is scheduled to deliver its judgement in the case before the end of the year.