By Onika James Wednesday, November 25 2009

click on pic to zoom in

PANDAY ENTITLED: Justice Judith Jones yesterday ruled that there be an order of prohibition preventing Magistrate Ejenny Espinet from hearing the retr...

« prev photo next photo »

Former Prime Minister Basdeo Panday got his way yesterday after High Court Judge, Justice Judith Jones, in a judicial review, ruled that he was “entitled to the declarations sought, and an order of prohibition preventing the Magistrate (Ejenny Espinet),” from hearing his retrial.

In addition, Justice Jones also ruled that, “it will not be appropriate” for him (Panday) “to await the determination of a retrial,” in the Integrity in Public Life Act, false declaration case.

Panday was convicted on April 24, 2006, for failing to declare an estimated $2 million to the Integrity Commission.

His defence team, had asked Espinet to recuse herself from the matter, on the grounds that she was also presiding over the Piarco bribery matter in which Panday is also charged.

However, Espinet refused.

Attorneys for Panday claimed that, the evidence in both trials overlapped, and her adjudication of both trials, would have raised questions as to her ability to hear the matters.

On April 11, 2008, the Privy Council paved the way for Panday to be retried on three charges of failing to declare a joint London bank account to the Integrity Commission.

However, when the matter came up before Espinet on September 15, 2008, attorney Ravi Rajcoomar reminded Espinet that a stay had been imposed on the matter, pending the outcome of the judicial review.

Yesterday, in a 19-page written judgment Jones said, “ In my opinion, for more than one reason, it is not appropriate for the Claimant (Panday) to await the determination of the retrial by the Magistrate (Espinet), and if necessary take the point on appeal.”

“In the first place,” the judge continued, “the bias is alleged against the very tribunal that is vested with the power to convict. These proceedings apart the only option opened to the Claimant would be an appeal in the event of conviction by the Magistrate. In any event, what is at stake here, is public confidence in the integrity of the judicial system, and the effect a determination of the retrial by the Magistrate would have on that confidence.”

She added that, “in all the circumstances of the case,” she “is of the opinion that the Claimant (Panday) is entitled to the declaration sought, and an order of prohibition preventing the Magistrate (Espinet) from hearing the retrial.”