- NEWSDAY.CO.TT - A la Une - 04/Aug 19:06

DPP loses appeal in 20-year bribery case against ex-cop

The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Roger Gaspard, SC, has lost a final bid to retry a former police officer for corruption, after the Privy Council dismissed the appeal and upheld a stay of proceedings imposed by the local courts. The ruling brings to a close a nearly 20-year legal saga surrounding Nawaz Ali’s alleged solicitation and acceptance of bribes. Ali was first tried in 2010 on three counts of corruption related to bribes allegedly solicited in exchange for halting a stolen vehicle investigation. He was acquitted on the first two counts but convicted on the third and sentenced to five years in prison. That conviction was overturned by the Court of Appeal in 2010, which ordered a retrial. The retrial collapsed in 2018 when the presiding judge, then-Justice Gillian Lucky, stayed the case, citing unfairness stemming from the exclusion of evidence related to the first two counts. The DPP challenged that stay, but the Court of Appeal upheld it in 2021. In its final judgment, the Privy Council dismissed the DPP’s appeal, ruling that although the indictment was legally permissible, the proceedings had become oppressive due to excessive delays and flawed judicial decisions. “This case... is wholly exceptional,” the Privy Council said. “It would be quite unconscionable to permit a further trial which would take place some 20 years after Mr Ali was charged with these offences.” “The Board unhesitatingly concludes that the State has failed to bring these proceedings to trial within a reasonable time…The decision to uphold the stay is justified on the ground of delay and was one which was plainly open to the second Court of Appeal in 2021. The Board considers that it would be wrong to interfere with it. The position is even clearer now, in 2025, than it was then.” The judges also rejected the DPP’s concern in his reason for appealing the stay. It was submitted that Ali had been suspended without pay since his arrest and may seek to advance a claim for reinstatement, back pay and pension entitlements. King’s Counsel Peter Knox, who represented the DPP, argued it would be in the public interest that Ali’s guilt or innocence on the third count of the indictment should be determined in a criminal trial. “The Board does not accept that this justifies the removal of the stay. The events giving rise to the charge took place in December 2005 and January 2006, very nearly 20 years ago. These proceedings have been hanging over Mr Ali throughout that time, including the possibility of a five-year prison term with hard labour. “They are rightly stayed. A stay, however, is not the same as an acquittal. For all practical purposes, it determines these criminal proceedings which will never now proceed to a determination on the merits. “Even if Mr Ali had been acquitted on all counts, this would not have prevented his employer from alleging and adducing evidence to prove in disciplinary or civil proceedings that Mr Ali solicited and received bribes. “As it is, he was convicted by the jury on count three, and it is a consequence of what has been said above that that conviction ought not to have been quashed by the first Court of Appeal. He was safely convicted…The outcome of these criminal proceedings will be of no assistance to Mr Ali in any disciplinary or civil proceedings.” According to the evidence at the first trial in 2010, the key prosecution witness, Azard Hosein, testified that on December 25, 2005, Ali and other officers came to his premises and accused him of possessing a stolen vehicle. He was taken to the Cunupia police station, where Ali allegedly told him the matter was serious and could be expensive. Hosein said Ali suggested he could avoid trouble by paying $9,000 to the officers. Hosein reportedly said he could only come up with $3,000, and later agreed to pay $6,000 after Ali consulted with a sergeant. According to Hosein, his son withdrew $4,500 that day, which he handed to Ali at the station. The son provided withdrawal slips showing he had withdrawn the exact amount around the same time. Later, Hosein reported the matter to the Anti-Corruption Investigations Bureau. On January 4, 2006, acting on instructions, he arranged to give Ali the remaining $1,500 in marked bills supplied by the police. Hosein testified that he handed the money to Ali in a room at the back of the station. This was confirmed by an officer who testified that when he arrived at the station shortly after, he found Ali with an envelope in his pocket containing the marked bills. The serial numbers matched the copies taken earlier, and the envelope had the agreed markings. Ali, in his defence, agreed with Hosein’s version of events only up to the point of arriving at the station. He said he merely took a witness statement from Hosein and returned his documents after the sergeant found nothing conclusive. He denied asking for money or receiving $4,500. Concerning the January 4 meeting, Ali claimed Hosein had referred to bringing “the thing,” which he believed meant documents. He admitted receiving an envelope but denied discussing money, saying he was surprised when the envelope was found to contain cash. Ali did not appear at the appeal before the Privy Council and was not represented. Lords Hodge, Briggs, Leggatt, Richards and Sir Andrew Edis presided over the appeal. Sir Andrew wrote the decision. The post DPP loses appeal in 20-year bribery case against ex-cop appeared first on Trinidad and Tobago Newsday.