Caption: DPP Roger Gaspard, SC. Photo: Parliament of T&T

Summary

• High Court Judge Frank Seepersad has given Director of Public Prosecutions Roger Gaspard, SC, 35 days to decide whether to proceed with charges against two police officers accused of robbing a Chinese couple in 2014.
• The ruling followed a lawsuit by Sgt Lester Garcia and PC Dexter Edwards, who challenged the DPP’s delay in filing indictments after they were committed to stand trial in 2020.
• Justice Seepersad ruled the delay was ‘unreasonable, improper and unlawful,’ saying the DPP failed to properly assess the evidence or make a timely prosecutorial decision.
• The judge rejected explanations from the DPP’s Office that administrative backlogs and audio recording issues caused the delay.
• The court also ordered the DPP’s Office to pay the officers’ legal costs, while giving the prosecution just over a month to either file indictments or discontinue the case.

By Prior Beharry

DIRECTOR of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Roger Gaspard, SC, has been ordered by the High Court to decide within 35 days whether to proceed with criminal charges against two police officers accused of robbing a Chinese couple more than a decade ago.

The deadline was imposed by High Court Judge Frank Seepersad, who upheld a lawsuit filed by Sgt Lester Garcia and PC Dexter Edwards over what the court described as an unreasonable delay by the DPP in filing indictments in the case.

In his ruling on Thursday, Justice Seepersad said the prolonged inaction by the DPP’s Office—following the officers’ committal to stand trial in 2020—fell outside the scope of lawful discretionary decision-making. Without the filing of indictments, the matter cannot be listed for trial or placed under the management of a High Court judge.

“The defendant’s resulting inaction in either filing an indictment or discontinuing the proceedings is not reasonable and falls squarely outside the range of any lawful discretionary responses which is open to him,” Seepersad said in his judgement.

Garcia and Edwards were among four officers charged in September 2014 with three counts of misbehaviour in public office. The charges stemmed from allegations that the officers stole a large sum of money while conducting a search at the Arouca home of a Chinese businessman and his wife.

All four officers were granted bail but were suspended from duty while the case progressed.

Following a preliminary inquiry before then-senior magistrate Indrani Cedeno, now a temporary High Court judge, Garcia, Edwards and acting Cpl Sheldon Peterson were committed to stand trial on two of the three charges. A fourth officer was discharged.

Peterson, however, died in October 2024 after being shot during a gun battle with bandits at a supermarket where he had been working while under suspension.

Garcia and Edwards later filed a constitutional claim through their attorneys, led by Senior Counsel Sophia Chote, arguing that repeated requests for updates on the status of the indictments went unanswered.

While acknowledging that the DPP is not legally required to file an indictment immediately after a committal, Seepersad stressed that the constitutional responsibilities of the office require decisions to be made within a reasonable timeframe.

“This court recognises the importance of allowing the defendant adequate and reasonable time to review the committal bundle before deciding whether to proffer an indictment, but the exercise of this constitutional obligation cannot be at his pleasure,” the judge said.

The court rejected explanations from the DPP’s Office that the delay resulted from administrative challenges, including a backlog of about 400 capital matters awaiting indictment preparation.

Seepersad described those explanations as lacking merit, adding that the evidence suggested the DPP had not undertaken a meaningful evaluation of the case.

“It appears that the defendant neither undertook an objective, independent, and critical assessment of the evidence nor did he evaluate its sufficiency,” the judge said.

The court also dismissed claims that the delay was caused by poor-quality audio recordings from the State’s main witness, noting that such evidentiary issues could be addressed by the trial judge.

Seepersad further criticised what he described as a “routine and robotic administrative approach” by the DPP, saying insufficient consideration had been given to whether the prosecution should proceed based on evidential and public interest factors.

He ultimately declared the delay unreasonable, improper and unlawful and ordered the DPP’s Office to pay the legal costs of Garcia and Edwards.

Garcia and Edwards were represented by attorneys Samantha Ramsaran and Sophia Chote, SC. The DPP’s Office was represented by Rachael Jacob, Akeenie Murray, Lianne Thomas and Fazana Ali.