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.

Wednesday, August 13, 2025

Privy Council sides with DPP in novel case

by

Derek Achong
390 days ago
20240719
DPP Roger Gaspard, SC.

DPP Roger Gaspard, SC.

Se­nior Re­porter

derek.achong@guardian.co.tt

A de­ci­sion by the lo­cal courts to stop the pros­e­cu­tion of three men ac­cused of com­mit­ting a triple mur­der has been over­turned by the coun­try’s high­est ap­pel­late court.

De­liv­er­ing a judg­ment, yes­ter­day morn­ing, five Law Lords of the Unit­ed King­dom-based Privy Coun­cil ruled that a High Court Judge and two out of three judges of the Court of Ap­peal, in­clud­ing Chief Jus­tice Ivor Archie, were wrong to al­low the trio to pur­sue the case let alone up­hold it.

La­dy Sue Carr, who de­liv­ered the Board’s judg­ment, said, “As the au­thor­i­ties con­firm, oc­ca­sions when it is ap­pro­pri­ate to ju­di­cial­ly re­view a pros­e­cu­to­r­i­al de­ci­sion whether to (con­tin­ue to) pros­e­cute are ex­treme­ly rare.

“In the present case, there was un­war­rant­ed in­ter­fer­ence by a civ­il court of con­cur­rent ju­ris­dic­tion with on­go­ing pro­ceed­ings in a crim­i­nal court,” she added.

The le­gal vic­to­ry for the Of­fice of the Di­rec­tor of Pub­lic Pros­e­cu­tions (DPP) set an im­por­tant prece­dent as it helped de­fine the pa­ra­me­ters for pur­su­ing civ­il law­suits chal­leng­ing on­go­ing crim­i­nal pros­e­cu­tions.

The out­come means that DPP Roger Gas­pard, SC, has to de­cide whether two of the three men should be re­ar­rest­ed and tried for the crime as one died while their case was still pend­ing.

The case, which led to the ap­peal, was brought by Chris Durham, Ian Sandy, and De­on Cal­liste.

Durham, Sandy and Cal­liste were charged with mur­der­ing 15-year-old Mubarak Calder, Men­tie Mu­rai, 19, and Kevon St Louis dur­ing a shoot­ing at a bot­tle fac­to­ry at Fac­to­ry Road in Diego Mar­tin on April 21, 2009.

The State’s main wit­ness against the trio was O’Neil Ben­jamin, who claimed to have wit­nessed the mur­ders and im­pli­cat­ed them.

How­ev­er, when the trio’s tri­al was about to com­mence in 2019, Ben­jamin ad­mit­ted to pros­e­cu­tors that he lied about the trio’s in­volve­ment dur­ing the pre­lim­i­nary in­quiry of the case and in­di­cat­ed that he was will­ing to re­peat the fab­ri­cat­ed ev­i­dence.

The trio filed the civ­il law­suit af­ter DPP Gas­pard re­fused to dis­con­tin­ue the case against them based on the ad­mis­sion.

In June 2019, High Court Judge Ava­son Quin­lan-Williams up­held their nov­el law­suit as she ruled that the DPP’s fail­ure to dis­con­tin­ue the charges was un­rea­son­able, im­prop­er and un­fair.

The trio was freed fol­low­ing the out­come. While wait­ing for the Ap­peal Court to weigh in on the case, Durham slipped and fell in­to a riv­er in Diego Mar­tin while search­ing for his miss­ing pet par­rot in Oc­to­ber 2020.

In Jan­u­ary 2022, the Ap­peal Court de­liv­ered a ma­jor­i­ty rul­ing in which CJ Archie and Ap­pel­late Judge Pe­ter Ra­jku­mar agreed with Jus­tice Quin­lan-Williams’ find­ings.

Jus­tice Nolan Bereaux de­liv­ered a dis­sent­ing judg­ment in which he claimed his col­leagues were “pal­pa­bly” wrong in in­ter­ven­ing in the case.

La­dy Carr and her col­leagues ruled that Jus­tice Bereaux was cor­rect in his analy­sis.

They ruled that the trio should have on­ly been al­lowed to pur­sue the ju­di­cial re­view case if they did not have any oth­er form of re­dress in re­la­tion to Ben­jamin’s ad­mis­sion.

They point­ed out that they could have sought a stay of the pro­ceed­ings from the judge as­signed to pre­side over their tri­al.

The Board al­so con­clud­ed that even if they did not have the al­ter­na­tive rem­e­dy, Gas­pard’s de­ci­sion to al­low the tri­al to pro­ceed, de­spite Ben­jamin’s con­trary claims, could not be fault­ed.

“The short an­swer to this is sim­ply that the DPP was un­der no oblig­a­tion to pro­vide any rea­sons for his pros­e­cu­to­r­i­al de­ci­sion,” La­dy Carr said.

She point­ed out that any per­ceived un­rea­son­able­ness and un­fair­ness were not enough to amount to an ex­cep­tion­al cir­cum­stance to war­rant the de­ci­sions of the lo­cal courts.

The trio was rep­re­sent­ed by Richard Clay­ton, KC, Ger­ald Ramdeen, Wayne Sturge, and Dayadai Har­ri­paul. The DPP’s Of­fice was rep­re­sent­ed by Ian Ben­jamin, SC, Ke­ston Mc­Quilkin, and Pierre Rud­der.


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored