With lots of help from some friends.
The timeline below represents the publicly disclosed events related to the accelerated proclamation of Sec. 34 of the Administration of Justice (Preliminary Inquiry) Bill / Act
1. Mar 2011: Consultations with the DPP re: Administration of Justice (Preliminary Inquiry) Bill commenced. DPP responded 6th May 2011. Neither Section 34 nor Schedule 6 as now contained in the Act (i.e. AoJPI 2011 proclaimed on 30 Aug 2012) were in the draft bill sent by the Minister of Justice. [Ref 8]
2. 07 Nov 2011: Boodoosingh’s judgment in Galbaransingh and Ferguson was delivered. Following is the full November 7, 2011 judgment of Justice Ronnie Boodoosingh in the extradition matter of businessmen Ishwar Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson. [Ref 1]. AG Ramlogan retained James Lewis QC to advise on what course of action, if any, should be taken after the November 2011, ruling of Justice Ronnie Boodoosingh [Ref 7].
<!--break-->
3. 11 Nov 2011: Administration of Justice (Preliminary Inquiry) Bill laid in House of Representatives for 1st reading [Ref 13]. Draft Bill at 1st Reading in the Lower House on has S34 deadline trigger as "the trial has not commenced within seven years after the proceedings were instituted" [Ref 2]. Hansard for 11 Nov shows the Bill being read for the 1st time and no debate on it - move to have 2nd Reading on 18 Nov 2011 [Ref 3].
4. 18 Nov 2011, Debate in the House on the Administration of Justice (Preliminary Inquiry) Bill began. Section 34 was introduced in that Bill in the House of Representatives ("the House") Section 34(2) at start of 2nd Reading [Ref 2] states:
"34(2) On an application by the accused, a Judge shall discharge an accused if the proceedings were instituted prior to the coming into force of this Act and the trial has not commenced within seven years after the proceedings were instituted, except—(a) in the case of matters listed in Schedule 6; or
(b) where the accused has evaded the process ofthe Court and the trial on indictment has, for that reason, not commenced."
The bill was debated and the period increased to ten (10) years from seven (7) years during the Committee Stage [Ref 3, pages 133-134]:
"Question proposed: That clause 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mrs. Persad-Bissessar: Mr. Chairman, we propose an amendment to clause 34(2) as circulated:
“Delete the word 'seven' and substitute the word 'ten'‟.
Mr. Chairman: Thank you. I think the hon. Member—
Mr. Imbert: Yes, what is the policy behind going from seven to ten? Because this is a situation where there is a delay and you are allowing the judicial officer to discharge the accused. In your original Bill it was seven years, after a delay of seven years, now ten. Why ten? Are you picking this from some Commonwealth standard? Why ten?
Mr. Volney: No, you see, it is a paradigm shift and what we would like to do is to start with ten, to be conservative with ten, and at the appropriate time we could always lessen it. That is how we look at it at this time.
Mrs. Persad-Bissessar: Are you proposing that we keep seven?
Mr. Imbert: Yes, I do not know why you want to amend it. Ten years is a long time between charge and trial, you know—somebody waiting for ten years.
Mrs. Persad-Bissessar: Should we keep it at the seven, are you prepared to vote for the Bill? Would you vote for it?
Mr. Imbert: Yes.
Mrs. Persad-Bissessar: For the entire Bill?
Mr. Imbert: You hear us say we opposing the Bill?
Mrs. Persad-Bissessar: No, I do not know, I am asking?
Mr. Imbert: Did you hear us say we are opposing the Bill?
Mrs. Persad-Bissessar: Well, we will keep it as seven. I withdraw the proposed amendment.
Mr. Imbert: Mr. Chairman, I crave you indulgence, we went a little too fast. I just have one clause that we skipped over, clause 31 and that is it. Could we go back to clause 31?
Mr. Chairman: Okay, before we go to clause 31, let me just put the question because I do not want to leave this thing hanging. Are you withdrawing?
Mr. Imbert: Yes, I think they said so. They are taking out the amendment.
Mrs. Persad-Bissessar: Mr. Chairman, I have been advised by the Minister of Legal Affairs who has quite some experience in the criminal courts, that we would prefer to keep it, to amend it to ten.
Mr. Chairman: All right, so could I put the question, hon. Members?
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 34, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill."
Bill with Committee Stage amendments undergoes 3rd Reading and requires a special majority of three-fifths or at least 25 Ayes): it is passed unanimously by 35 MPs present [Ref 3].
5. 22 Nov 2011: Administration of Justice (Preliminary Inquiry) Bill laid in Senate for 1st Reading [Ref 13]. Hansard for proceedings on 22 Nov 2011 show the Bill being laid in the Senate and a motion being passed to move to 2nd Reading on 29 Nov 2011 - so no changes on 22 Nov 2011 [Ref 4]. At this time, draft Bill has Section 34 as follows [Ref 5]:
"34. (1) Except in the case of matters listed in Schedule 6, where the proceedings are instituted on or after thecoming into force of this Act and the Master is not, within twelve months after the proceedings are instituted, in a position to order that the accused be put on trial, the Master may discharge the accused.
(2) On an application by the accused, a Judge shall discharge an accused if the proceedings were instituted prior to the coming into force of this Act and the trial has not commenced within ten years after the proceedings were instituted, except—(a) in the case of matters listed inSchedule 6; or(b) where the accused has evaded the process ofthe Court and the trial on indictment has, for that reason, not commenced."
Schedule 6 does not include fraud cases [Ref 5].
6. 29 Nov 2011: Debate begins in Senate on 2nd Reading [Ref 13]. Min. Volney in his opening remarks during the 2nd Reading, between 11:45 am and 12:00 noon, curiously says [Ref 6, pages 20-21]: "Clause 34 would provide for the discharge of the accused on the grounds of delay, except for the offences identified in Schedule 6 where the time of coming into force of this Bill, the trial at the assizes has not commenced within 10 years of the commission of the crime, the judge shall discharge the accused."
However, subsequent conributors to the debate still refer to S34 being based on the time of first proceedings. Sen. E. Prescott SC alludes to impact of S34 on fraud and bidrigging cases. He reads his version of S34 between 4:15 and 4:30 pm [Ref 6, page 115]:
'Clause 34(2)—and 34(2) is where the bane of the thing is: "On an application by the accused person, a Judge shall discharge an accused if the proceedings were instituted prior to the coming into force of this Act and the trial has not commenced within ten years after the proceedings were instituted…"
“If you have been brought to court and 10 years have passed since the proceedings have been instituted, a judge is bound to discharge the accused.
Mr. President, if you are charged in this country with fraud, with currency infringement, with bidrigging and you have enough money to take the matter to the Privy Council at each stage, 10 years later you are bound to find—you may well find, that you are still at the initial hearing or the sufficiency hearing.
In short, current events tell us that it may take 10 years to get out of the masters‘ court in a sufficiency hearing. And then all you have to do when you cross the 10 years deadline, go before the judge and say dismiss this case; discharge me here. I do not know, because there used to be a doubt in my mind whether discharge means that there are not going to be any further criminal proceedings, but it would certainly lead to further constitutional proceedings if you try to charge him again.'
AG Sen. Anand Ramlogan SC, in his contribution made between 4:30 and 4:45 pm, notes [Ref 6, page 124]: “In highly complex and technical matters, in particular, in relation to financial crimes, fraud matters, this abolition of preliminary inquiries will serve us well because we have known that matters have taken a meandering, endless path through the labyrinth of our criminal justice system for quite some time now, with no end in sight. The endemic backlog that presently exists, this will hopefully dynamite the log-jam and it is going to free up the system and have knock-on benefits down the road.”
Bill enters Committee Stage involving the whole Senate at 9:30 pm [Ref 6, page 224]. S34 amended upon motion by ex-Min. Volney between 11:15 and 11:30 pm [Ref 6, pages 280-281]:
'Question propose: That clauses 34 stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Volney: Mr. Chairman, I beg to move that clause 34 be amended as circulated: Delete and substitute the following clause:
"Discharge on the grounds of delay - Schedule 6
34. (1) Where proceedings are instituted on or after the coming into force of this Act and the Master is not, within twelve months after the proceedings are instituted, in a position to order that the accused be put on trial, the Master shall discharge the accused and a verdict of not guilty shall be recorded.
(2) Except—
(a) in the case of matters listed in Schedule 6; or
(b) where the accused has evaded the process of the Court, after the expiration of ten years from the date on which an offence is alleged to have been committed—
(c) no proceedings shall be instituted for that offence; or
(d) no trial shall commence in respect of that offence.
(3) Except—
(a) in the case of matters listed in Schedule 6; or
(b) where the accused has evaded the process of the Court,
where—
(c) proceedings have been instituted;
(d) an accused is committed to stand trial; or
(e) an order is made to put an accused on trial, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, a Judge shall, on an application by the accused, discharge the accused and record a verdict of not guilty if the offence is alleged to have been committed on a date that is ten years or more before the date of the application."
Question put and agreed to
Clause 34, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.'
Draft Bill with Committee Stage amendments then proceeds quickly to 3rd Reading and vote. Division taken at p.m. as special three-fifths majority is required. Bill is passed unanimously by 29 Senators present and Senate adjourns at 11:34 p.m. [Ref 6, pages 283-285].
Opposition Leader says that [Ref 19]:
"Before the Committee Stage of the Senate was concluded discussions took place (as they say behind the President's chair) between an independent Senator, Senator Al-Rawi and Ramlogan about the impact of the proposed amendment to section 34 on the pending Piarco cases. The Senators all agreed that once section 34 came into force Galbaransingh and Ferguson would be entitled to apply to have the cases against them dismissed. Ramlogan assured the Senators that before the Act was proclaimed there would be full consideration of all issues, that all conditions requested in the debates in the House of Representatives and the Senate would be met and that a further review would be had, including an amendment of the Sixth Schedule to the Act to make the offences with which Galbaransingh and Ferguson were charged exempt from the application of section 34. He pointed out that the amendment to the Sixth Schedule could be done under section 27(3) by a Minister’s Order or by way of amendments to the Act prior to proclamation. "
7. 09 Dec 2011: Draft Bill passed by Senate returns to the House [Ref 13] as required when Bills passed by the House are amended by the Senate [Ref 15]. Hansard shows Bill debate started between 6:00 and 6:15 pm [Ref 14, page 109]. MP Colm Imbert notes the significant change to S34(2) between 6:30 and 6:45 p.m. and asks for the reasons for the change [Ref 14, pages 126-127]. The Bill was passed unanimously by 37 MPs present without amendment between 6:45 and 7:00 p.m. [Ref 14, pages 132-134].
8. 16 Dec 2011 President of the Republic assents to the Bill – Act No. 20 of 2011 [Ref 13].
9. 17 Dec 2011 James Lewis QC presents his opinion on appeal as to extradition to AG Ramlogan[Ref 7].
10. 19 Dec 2011: AG Ramlogan announces his decision not to appeal Boodoosingh J's decision because Ish Galbaransing and Steve Ferguson will be tried locally [Ref 7].
10b. 20 Dec 2011: AG Ramlogan, in responding to a release by the US Embassy on 20th Dec 2011, said in a statement:
"Of paramount importance is the question of where... the defendants are likely to be brought to justice in the quickest and shortest possible time. Not appealing means that the way is cleared for courts in Trinidad and Tobago to commence the trial of the defendants without further delay. It does not mean that the defendants will walk free without facing trial—a possible prospect if the State appealed. “The Attorney General has every confidence in the ability of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago to competently and fairly try these defendants and deliver justice according to law.” [Ref 7]
11. Feb 2012: Ministry of Justice requested from the DPP an indication of the number of matters to which 34(3) of the Act would apply [Ref 8].
12. 22 May 2012, the DPP's office reponded by way of letter to the MoJ, advising thate there were forty-seven (47) matters for which committal papers had been received for offences committed more than ten (10) years ago and which were not covered by Schedule 6 INCLUDING Piarco 1. [Ref 8]
13. 20 Jul 2012, AG Ramlogan leaves T&T in period 20 Jul - 04 Aug 2012. [Ref 9]. Minister of Environment & Water Resources Ganga Singh acts as AG during his absence [Ref 16].
14. 24 Jul 2012, Judiciary and Justice Sector Committee meeting was held, with the ex-Min. of Justice Volney and DPP Gaspard in attendance. According to the DDP's letter: "During this meeting, the effect and to some extent, the import of Section 34 of the Act were raised. This prompted a response by the Minister of Justice that Cabinet had made a decision." [Ref 8]
DPP maintains that "I had never been asked to comment on the significance of section 34(2) and 34(3), prior to the Bill being introduced into the Parliament of Trinidad and Tobago on the 11th of November 2011." [Ref 8]
15. 06 Aug 2012, the ex-Min. of Justice Volney tabled Cabinet Note J (12) 29 which sought Cabinet’s approval to proclaim the Act with effect from January 1st 2013 [Ref 9, Ref 12].
16. 31 Aug 2012: Section 34 of the Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act 2011 comes into effect due to partial proclamation by President. Under this Act section 34(2) and 34(3) are of such effect that any matter involving offences committed over ten (10) years ago cannot now be tried unless they are excepted by Schedule 6 of the Act [Ref 10]. None of the assurances given by AG Ramlogan were effected [Ref 19].
17. 12 Sep 2012: A Bill to repeal the “oversight” of the controversial Section 34 in the Administration of Justice (Indictable Offences) Act 2011 is unanimously passed by 35 MPs in an emergency session of the House [Ref 11, Ref 17].
18. 13 Sep 2012: The draft repeal Bill moves to the Senate where it is passed by 25 of 30 Senators present - 5 [Independent] Senators voted against [Ref 17].
19. 14 Sep 2012: President assents to draft repeal Bill [Ref 18].
20. 20 Sep 2012: Leaked Cabinet Note J (12) 29 dated 06 Aug 2012 – published in Express – page 3 – refers to Cabinet Minute 1807 of 23 Dec 2011 as being relevant [Ref 12]. Hon. Prime Minister issues a Statement to the Nation after 7:15 p.m., in which she outlined her actions and advised that ex-Min. Volney has been fired [Ref 9].
21. 21 Sep 2012: Opposition leader issues his timeline of events surrounding S34 [Ref 19]. He said:
"Ramlogan owed the public answers to the following questions:
(i) Why did he not appeal Justice Boodoosingh’s decision and apply to put fresh evidence before the Court of Appeal that section 34 now rendered a local trial impossible and that accordingly the basis on which Justice Boodoosingh decided that it was unjust and oppressive to extradite Galbaransingh and Ferguson no longer existed?
(ii) Why did he tell the public that he decided not to appeal because there was to be a local trial when he knew that once section 34 was proclaimed Galbaranbsingh and Ferguson would be discharged?
(iii) Why did he not take steps to amend the Sixth Schedule or section 34 to make sure that Galbaransingh and Ferguson could not rely on section 34?
(iv) Why did he not advise Cabinet on August 6th that the proclamation of section 34 would mean that Galbaransingh and Ferguson would be entitled to be discharged?
(v) Did he fail to do all of these obvious things because it was his government’s intention that Galbarabsingh and Ferguson should go free? Or was that result his own private intention?"
References:
1. Ruling by Justice Ronnie Boodoosingh, 07 Nov 2011:
http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/ISH--Steve-Ruling-136342608.html
2. Version of the Bill tabled for reading in house 11 Nov and 18 Nov 2011:
http://www.ttparliament.org/legislations/b2011h31.pdf
3. Hansard for 1st reading in the House on 11 Nov 2011:
http://www.ttparliament.org/hansards/hh20111111.pdf
Hansard 18 Nov 2011:
http://www.ttparliament.org/hansards/hh20111118.pdf
4. Hansard for reading in the Senate 22 Nov 2011:
http://www.ttparliament.org/hansards/hs20111122.pdf
5. Version of the Bill tabled for reading in the Senate 22 Nov 2011:
http://www.ttparliament.org/legislations/b2011h31-1rS.pdf
6. Hansard in the Senate 29 Nov 2011:
http://www.ttparliament.org/hansards/hs20111129.pdf
7. Trinidad Guardian article, 11 Sep 2012, on QC Lewis' advice given on 17 Dec 2011 to AG Ramlogan:
http://www.guardian.co.tt/news/2012-09-10/qc-appeal-over-ish-and-steve%E...
8. Full media statement by DPP Gaspard, 12 Sep 2012:
http://www.trinidadandtobagonews.com/blog/?p=6707
9. Statement by PM Persad-Bissessar, 20 Sep 2012:
https://www.facebook.com/notes/kamla-persad-bissessar/statement-from-pri...
10. Legal Supplement Part B–Vol. 51, No. 142 – Trinidad & Tobago Gazette, 30 Aug 2012:
http://www.ttparliament.org/legislations/ln2012-348.pdf
11. Trinidad Guardian article on Repeal of Section 34, 13 Sep 2012: http://www.guardian.co.tt/news/2012-09-13/mps-repeal-section-34-after-am...
12. [need to add PDF of leaked Cabinet Note J (12) 29 - printed in Trinidad Express, 20 Sep 2012, page 3.]
13. Link to Parliament TT website which contains the documents related to the progress of the The Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Bill, 2011:
http://www.ttparliament.org/publications.php?mid=28&id=623
14. Hansard in House of 09 Dec 2011:
http://www.ttparliament.org/hansards/hh20111209.pdf
15. The Process of Lawmaking:
http://www.ttparliament.org/publications.php?mid=66
16. Trinidad & Tobago Gazette (Extraordinary), No. 128 - 25th July 2012:http://www.news.gov.tt/EGazette/Gazette%202012/Gazette/Gazette%20No.%201...
17. Progression of The Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) (Amendment) Bill, 2012:
http://www.ttparliament.org/publications.php?mid=28&id=643
18. Assent of The Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) (Amendment) Bill, 2012:
http://www.ttparliament.org/legislations/a2012-15.pdf
19. Media statement by Opposition Leader giving timeline from his viewpoint:
https://www.facebook.com/notes/opposition-leader/the-clause-34-timeline/...
