Senior Reporter
derek.achong@guardian.co.tt
The Court of Appeal does not have the jurisdiction to consider appeals challenging decisions of High Court Masters to direct that persons accused of serious criminal offences face trial after assessing the sufficiency of the evidence against them.
Delivering a judgment last Friday, Appellate Judges Mark Mohammed, Maria Wilson and Geoffrey Henderson dismissed an appeal, brought by a former Water and Sewerage Authority (WASA) executive and a director of a construction company accused of corruption.
In July 2018, Wendell Diaz, the former head of procurement and logistics at WASA and Michael Arjune, director of Kall Co Ltd were charged.
Diaz was charged with corruptly accepting a $30,000 bribe from Arjune as a reward for influencing the award of WASA contracts to the company.
Arjune was charged for paying the bribe in December 2013.
The duo’s case fell under the Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act (AJIPA), which replaced protracted preliminary inquiries before magistrates with quicker sufficiency hearings before High Court Masters.
During their sufficiency hearing, the duo’s lawyers claimed that there was unsatisfactory recognition evidence linking them to the crime as the police failed to conduct an identification parade before charging them.
In January last year, the Master dismissed their challenge and found that there was sufficient evidence for them to face a trial before a Judge and jury or Judge-alone.
They filed the appeal questioning the Master’s decision but the Appeal Court decided to consider whether it could entertain the challenge before determining the merits of the duo’s complaints.
Justice Mohammed, who wrote the panel’s decision, noted that before AJIPA was proclaimed in December 2023, accused persons who were committed to stand trial by magistrates were not permitted to appeal.
He noted that the AJIPA maintained the position.
“Ultimately, the rights of an accused are not diminished by dint of the fact that the accused has historically not had and continues not to have a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal with respect to an order directing that he be placed on trial,” Justice Mohammed said.
“There is no identifiable imbalance which is inimical to the rights of an accused,” he added.
Justice Mohammed noted that trial judges were capable of determining issues regarding the sufficiency of evidence and their decisions on such could be appealed.
Justice Mohammed and his colleagues were also asked to determine the power of judges to quash indictments when referred by Masters.
“In our view, there is no power to quash an indictment based on the insufficiency of the evidence,” Justice Mohammed said.
“To do so would interfere with the trial process through a premature and wholly illegitimate assessment of the evidence by a trial judge,” he added.
The duo was represented by Ulric Skerritt and Jagdeo Singh, while Sabrina Dougdeen-Jaglal and Giselle Ferguson-Heller represented the State.
