Maroc - NEWSDAY.CO.TT - A la Une - 10/Oct 15:25

Magistrate wants clarity on time limit in Paria diving case

DEPUTY Chief Magistrate Brian Dabideen said clarification of the limitation period, outlined in a recent Privy Council ruling, must be resolved before any further progress in the case involving charges under the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act stemming from the 2022 diving tragedy. Paria Fuel Trading Company Ltd, Land and Marine Construction Services Ltd (LMCS), and several executives face OSH charges stemming from the deaths of four LMCS divers who were trapped in an underwater pipeline at Paria’s Pointe-a-Pierre facility in February 2022. At a virtual hearing on October 9, Dabideen stressed that the Privy Council judgment on September 16, which addresses the issue of limitation under Sections 93 and 97B of the OSH Act, could determine whether the case proceeds or ends. “That is where we need to focus,” he said. “If we decide that these claims are out of time, that will be the end of it… If they are within time, the court has jurisdiction to deal with it, and we can then proceed to disclosure and trial.” He noted that the decision was recent but expected all attorneys to have examined its implications. “It is most important for us to deal with the Privy Council decision first and foremost before we go forward,” he said. Senior Counsel Pamela Elder, representing the OSH Agency (OSHA), maintained that the Privy Council’s ruling clearly states that the limitation period begins after the release of the Commission of Enquiry report. In a release on September 26, the agency outlined its position on the Privy Council’s ruling as it related to the Paria diving tragedy charges and a separate complaint involving NiQuan. “OSHA’s complaint filed on December 13, 2023, regarding the fatal accident on February 25, 2022, which occurred at Paria Fuel Trading Company Ltd, remains valid, as it was initiated within six months of the Commission of Enquiry’s report (on November 30, 2023), which is provided for under Section 91 (2),” the agency wrote. Dabideen is expected to rule on submissions on the issue on December 12. Also at Thursday’s hearing, Elder who also represents OSHA’s chief inspector, Franz Brisbane, told the court that disclosure obligations had been met and additional responses to further requests were expected by October 10. Appearing for Paria, Senior Counsel Sophia Chote, assisted by attorneys Kendall Alexander and Rosario Sookdeo, said her clients had received only one statement so far and were still awaiting the complainant’s statement and expert reports. Elder confirmed that two expert reports had already been disclosed. Chote also informed the court that Joanne Sinnansingh is now acting general manager of Paria, replacing Mushtaq Mohammed, as the company’s representative in the case. LMCS managing director Kazim Ali was represented by attorneys Dinesh Rambally and Renuka Rambhajan. In the landmark decision in September, the Privy Council upheld a Court of Appeal’s ruling confirming that the six-month limitation period under Section 93 of the OSH Act applies to all offences created by the act, both “safety and health offences” and “summary offences.” The judgment resolved a long-standing legal debate over whether the two-year limitation period in Section 97B of the act could also apply to prosecutions initiated by OSHA. The ruling affirmed that the longer period applied only to civil claims brought by individuals, such as employees seeking damages for breaches of statutory duties. The case originated when OSHA filed a complaint against the University of the West Indies (UWI) more than six months, but less than two years, after the alleged breach. The Industrial Court initially allowed the matter to proceed, relying on prior decisions that used the two-year limitation for safety and health offences. However, both the Court of Appeal and now the Privy Council rejected that interpretation, finding that such complaints must be made within six months of when the alleged offence came to the knowledge of an OSHA inspector. The Privy Council’s ruling was expected to have significant implications for hundreds of pending cases. Industrial Court President Heather Seale said at the court’s opening of the 2025–2026 law term that about 400 OSH complaints had been stayed pending the judgment. While the decision narrowed the time frame for OSHA-led prosecutions, the court stressed that the six-month period begins only when an inspector becomes aware of the alleged breach, not when it occurred. The two-year limitation period remains applicable to civil proceedings brought by individuals. The Privy Council’s ruling said, “The board is in no doubt that section 97B creates a two-year limitation for civil proceedings and does not apply to safety and health offences or other criminal offences under the act. Complaints in respect of summary and safety and health offences all fall within the six-month time limit in section 93.” It added, “Time is expressed to run from the date of knowledge of the commission of the offence. Nothing in the wording of any of these provisions suggests that ‘complaint’ has a technical meaning that restricts its application to prosecutions for summary offences only. “‘Complaint’ in section 93 relates to the initiation of both summary and safety and health prosecutions. Section 93, therefore, applies to the prosecution of all criminal offences under the act; that is, both safety and health offences on the one hand, and summary offences on the other.” Also appearing with Elder for OSHA and Brisbane are Richard Mason and Petal John-Berens. The post Magistrate wants clarity on time limit in Paria diving case appeared first on Trinidad and Tobago Newsday.