All of the allegations raised by Chief Justice Satnarine Sharma, challenging the propriety of a criminal charge now laid before the Court, can be raised at his trial, the Appeal Court ruled yesterday.
By Darren BahawApart from finding that the evidence submitted by Sharma to support a complaint of political interference to be woefully lacking, the Court, comprising Justices Margot Warner, Ivor Archie and Paula-Mae Weekes, noted: "It is a misuse of the judicial review procedure to allow it to proceed to trial in the hope that something might turn up that would assist (Sharma's) case."
Lawyers representing Sharma mounted their challenge to the criminal proceedings on the basis that it was plain for any reasonable, fair-minded well-informed observer to see a real possibility of a perception of political interference.
In reviewing the evidence afresh, in the absence of any analysis provided by the first instance judge, Justice Judith Jones, who found that the Chief Justice had made out an arguable case, the Appeal Court found that there was "nothing to suggest that, in deciding to refer the report for criminal investigation the Prime Minister improperly sought to influence its outcome".
They found that Justice Jones "having wrongfully concluded that (Sharma) had an arguable case... failed to consider the relevant public interest factors adequately or at all. Had she given them proper consideration she could not reasonably have continued the injunctions," the judgment said.
The Court found that there was no evidence to show that any pressure was brought to bear on Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Carla Brown-Antoine by either Attorney General John Jeremie or Prime Minister Patrick Manning.
Sharma's unusual access to the Court to obtain injunctions before Justice Jones was also criticised by the Appeal Court, which noted that the failure to inform the opposing side was not explained or justified.
The Court found that Justice Jones, in granting the blanket injunction against the entire Police Service, was more concerned about whether Sharma would be arrested when she should have focussed on whether there was any evidence to support the granting of the injunction.
Also coming in for criticism was Police Commissioner Trevor Paul's decision to review the file against Chief Justice Satnarine Sharma and direct his officers to institute criminal proceedings in the face of two High Court injunctions, which was wrong, the Appeal Court stated.
The Court said that Paul was aware of the orders made on July 10, "the spirit and intent" of which was that no criminal proceedings relating to the allegations made by Chief Magistrate Sherman McNicolls should be commenced or continued.
