DPP Tells Why Cases Against AIMU Head Failed

The Police on August 19 slapped charges against Raju for obtaining property by deception, forgery of a document, making a false claim and operating without a trade licence.

According to Charles-Clarke these matters first came up for initial hearing in the Magistrate’s Court on September 9 and were given a date for Sufficiency Hearing on October 16. But on that date the police had not submitted the files and there had been no disclosure.

Said the DPP: “The Master of the High Court indicated to the police that if they were not ready on the next occasion she would dismiss the matter. The cases were adjourned to 20th November, 2015 for sufficiency hearing when the prosecution would have to present evidence to establish a prima facie case for the defendant to be committed to trial for the offences for which he was charged

According to Charles-Clarke the files in these matters were submitted to her office on November 9 and were reviewed by a senior Crown Counsel and herself. On November 13, a meeting was convened with the Crown Counsel who had been assigned to review the files and the investigating officer.

“It was discovered that several statements which were required to establish a prima facie case were not included on the files. These statements were primarily from government officials and personnel (about ten persons) from various government ministries. There were also statements requested by way of Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty for evidence to be obtained in various overseas countries. These requests were made through the office of Attorney General which is the Central Authority for these requests. The investigating officer was questioned as to why these statements were outstanding. He indicated that he was having difficulty obtaining these statements from the government officials both past and present and he had been instructed to write to his supervisor to get permission to obtain these statements.

“Accordingly he had written to his supervisor on 14th and 24th September, 2015 and up to the date of our meeting he had not received any instructions. He had also written to his supervisor on 24th September, 2015 for various MLAT Requests to be made through the Attorney General’s Chambers. At the end of the meeting I indicated to the investigating officer that the outstanding evidence was needed in order for the case to advance to sufficiency hearing and for the Crown to establish a prima facie case and must reach my office before 20th November ,2015.

“On 16th November, 2015 I wrote to ACP for Crime and Intelligence Milton Desir informing him of the deficiencies in the files and requesting an update on the additional evidence required. On 19th November, 2015 I received communication from the investigating officer informing me that except for one statement he had not received any of the outstanding evidence. That same day I had a meeting with ACP Milton Desir who informed me that he had written to the government officials requesting the statements. I called the office of Attorney General to enquire about the status of the MLAT requests to get an update.

“On the morning of 20th November, 2015 the outstanding evidence had not been received and the evidence that the Crown had in its possession was not sufficient to establish a prima facie case.

“Accordingly in light of Rule 10.3 and given the Master’s disposition to dismiss the case if the Crown was not ready to proceed a decision was taken to withdraw the cases at this stage. This would give the police and the other parties the time required to obtain the evidence needed for the Crown to establish a prima facie case”.