The state yesterday admitted that members of the Anti-Corruption Investigations Bureau (ACIB) used illegally obtained warrants to search and seize documents from the home and offices of CL Financial Executive Chairman Lawrence Duprey and has agreed to compensate the businessman for the breaches of his fundamental rights.
By Darren BahawHowever, in an agreement reached with Duprey, the State will continue to hold on to the documents which were illegally seized as they relate to an ongoing criminal investigation pertaining to the acquisition of a London apartment which was occupied by the daughters of Opposition Leader Basdeo Panday, while he held office as Prime Minister during 1995-2001.
Justice Peter Jamadar, sitting in the San Fernando Third Civil Court, signed off on the consent order yesterday that was finalised after intense negotiations between lawyers representing Attorney General John Jeremie and Duprey's attorneys.
It brings an end to two separate lawsuits filed by Duprey - one relating to the October 25, 2004 search of his Maraval home and the other relating to searches carried out on September 9, 2004 and another on October 25, 2004 at Duprey's office at CL Financial Ltd, St Vincent Street, Port of Spain.
The warrants also authorised Government-hired forensic investigators Robert Lindquist and Dr Hans Marschdorf to assist police in the searches.
The State has also agreed to bear the legal costs incurred by Duprey.
From the inception of the lawsuit, Duprey had indicated through his attorneys that he did not want the police to return any of the documents they had seized since he had nothing to hide.
In addition, the State will now have to pay Duprey for breaching his fundamental rights to privacy, liberty and enjoyment of property, since the issue of the warrants was illegal and the resulting searches were also illegal. Lawyers told the Express last night that they could not immediately quantify an approximate compensation figure but they noted "you are talking about Duprey" and in the absence of any agreement with the State the matter would have to be decided upon before a Judge of the High Court.
In the lawsuit, Duprey professed to be a successful businessman with business interests, locally, regionally and internationally.
In an accompanying affidavit, Duprey claimed media reports of the police searches to his premises caused damage to his reputation, locally, regionally and internationally.
He claimed that he had been called upon to explain to attorneys and bankers acting on behalf of his foreign partners and had to give assurances that he was not engaged in any corrupt or illegal activities.
Attempts to contact Duprey for a comment last night were unsuccessful as he left Piarco on a flight for London.
Attorney General John Jeremie told the Express yesterday that he had disapproved of the method used by the police in conducting the searches and offered to return the documents but on the understanding that the State would search again for the same documents but this time do it properly.
It was based on this advice that attorneys Douglas Mendes SC and State Attorney Brandon Primus negotiated a settlement with Duprey's lawyers, Russell Martineau SC, Sophia Chote and Faarees Hosein.
Jeremie said the State intends to hold on to the documents because they related to an ongoing criminal investigation.
And as a result of the outcome of the lawsuit, Jeremie said he intends to offer guidelines to the Police Service as to how such searches are to be properly conducted in the future.
In relation to the September 9 and October 25, 2004 searches of Duprey's CL Financial offices, the State conceded that there were no reasonable grounds for members of the ACIB or the Justices of the Peace who authorised the grant of the warrant to believe that the documents referred to in the search warrants would afford evidence of a corrupt transaction or were concealed on the premises.
The State also conceded that in relation to the October 25, 2004 search of Duprey's home, the description of the documents in the search warrant "was insufficient and not specific and precise, vague and shows that it was absurd to conclude that the said documents were concealed on the premises".
In addition, the State agreed that "there were no reasonable grounds" for either the police search party or the Justices of the Peace who granted the warrant to believe that the documents referred to the search warrant would afford evidence as to the commission of an indictable offence, namely a corrupt transaction, under the Prevention of Corruption Act or were concealed on property.
