Report recommends no disciplinary action over missing file in AG’s office

The final report from the investigative team appointed by the Attorney General appointed to inquire into the circumstances surrounding a missing file in a malicious prosecution lawsuit brought by nine men acquitted of the murder of Vindra Naipaul-Coolman has found no disciplinary offence or criminal or fraudulent act was committed by any office or officer in the judicial and legal service.

The report, compiled by former High Court Judge Stanley John and retired Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) Pamela Schullera-Hinds, said it was mandated to investigate the disappearance of the file in the case CV 2020- 01243 Shervon Peters and Others vs The Attorney General of TT and establish whether there was any dereliction of duty, conflict of interest or breach of trust of any member of the Civil Law department.

The team said, “Our investigation has not found any facts, circumstances or evidence, which in our opinion, may give rise to, show or establish the commission of any disciplinary offence by any office/officer in the judicial and legal service relating to the management and conduct of CV2020-01243.

It also said its investigation had not found any facts, circumstances or evidence which “in our opinion may give rise to, show or establish the commission of any criminal or fraudulent act contrary to the laws of TT relating to the management and conduct of CV2020-01243.”

The team said the claim was filed electronically at the High Court Registry on May 29, 2020. It said its investigations revealed that no request was ever made by the office of the SG at any time for copies of the documents filed during the period that the matter was ongoing. It said the then SG had asked for these documents, copies would have been sent immediately.

“This, in our opinion, demonstrates that all the necessary steps were not taken by the then Solicitor General (SG) to obtain a duplicate file on realising that the file was missing. Had that been done and the SG’s department had actively participated in the claim for malicious prosecution, there is every likelihood that the outcome of the matter would have been significantly different and may not have reached the stage of assessment of damages. This demonstrates the lack of initiative within the civil law department and reinforces the need for urgent reform.”

The team said, contrary to the provisions of Section 20 of the State Liability and Proceedings Act Chap 8:02, the Claimants’ notice of application for default judgement and an affidavit filed May 9, 2020, were received by a court clerk attached to the Chief State Solicitor’s (CSS) court schedule department and served on November 12, 2020. It said while these documents were wrongly served and accepted, no steps were taken to forward them immediately to the office of the SG until February 11, 2021, three months later.

In the interim report, attached as an appendix, the team tracked the progress of the misplaced physical file. It said the claim was issued on May 29, 2020 and served on a clerk at the SG’s office on June 20. It said no acknowledgement of service was filed and no defence was filed by the state.

The interim report said the claim was signed for by a state counsel at the office of the SG on June 20 and was forwarded to the service clerk on the same day. The service clerk personally delivered the documents to the Registry Department. It said the file register, maintained by a clerk IV who was not a staff member, a clerk II recorded the receipt of the claim form as a new file on the movement card.

The movement card shows that the file was prepared on June 23, 2020 and the clerk I placed the file the same day in the Out Dip for transmission to the SG’s department via messenger. These files were taken to the SG’s Secretariat and recorded in the Incoming Register except for file CV2020-01243. The report said there is no recorded activity with respect to CV2020-01243 during the period June 20, 2020 to August 2021 except for emails sent to a CSS officer by counsel for the claimants.

The interim report said the former SG received an email from the CSS on July 6, 2021, informing her that an application for default judgment had been entered by the claimants. On August17, 2021, she requested the file from a clerk IV at the registry and was informed that it could not be located.

It said on August 19, 2021, a clerk I found the file on the desk of a deputy SG (now deceased), who had been on vacation leave since January 4 and had not returned to his office after that date. An email was sent to the SG to inform her the file had been found and where. On October 7, 2021, the registry received documents from the CSS office. A temporary file was not reconstituted until May 18, 2022, and there was no activity in the matter between May and October 2022.

On October 7, 2022, the registry received further documents from CSS. There is no record showing what was done with those documents.

“However, we are satisfied from the records that they were never placed in the reconstituted file.”

On November 8, 2022, the Registry received from CSS the speaking note of the claimants which was filed on November 3, 2022. The then Acting SG said she assigned the reconstituted file to a deputy SG (now a judge) to conduct to take conduct of the matter on behalf of the office of the Attorney General at the hearing of the assessment of damages.

The final report went on to make recommendations for increasing efficiency and effectiveness in the SG and CSS’s offices; the formation of a civil law department and its high-level structure; the formation of litigation, commercial, advisory and international affairs units; a Children’s Attorney office; and a separate office of the Registrar General. It gave job descriptions for various officers to be employed in these units as well as amendments to various pieces of legislation.

In laying the report in the Senate on January 21, Attorney General Reginald Armour said he had been hesitant to lay it until Act No. 14 of 2024, The Miscellaneous Provisions (Judicial and Legal Service) Act, 2024 was passed into law.

He said the report was illuminating and senators would understand, after reading it, why he did not want to make it public until Act No. 14 of 2024 was passed.

“There are disclosures in there which impact individuals. Flowing from this there emerged legal correspondence with the investigative team, which had caused the Salmon letter (official letters sent out by a public inquiry to people who will be subject to criticism when the inquiry’s report is released) correspondence to be issued.”

He said he was concerned that if the report was made public before now, his office would have become involved in litigation which would have negatively impacted the use of the report to introduce an enabling legislated platform for the process of meaningful transformative change which has been recommended since 2008.

Armour said the engagement and change process outlined in the report is already under way.

The post Report recommends no disciplinary action over missing file in AG’s office appeared first on Trinidad and Tobago Newsday.