A police investigation into the discovery of court documents at the Port-of-Spain office of an attorney almost five years ago unearthed no criminal wrongdoing. This was confirmed by the Judiciary in response to a media report about the discovery of the court documents in 2010. “The Judiciary is aware of comments in the media concerning the discovery in October 2010 of Court documents at the offices of an Attorney at Law,” the Judiciary said in a release issued on Friday.
“The matter was referred to the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service (TTPS) for investigation in November 2010. A report from the TTPS said investigation was submitted to the Judiciary in May 2011. The report indicated that, after the interview of various individuals, no further police action in the matter was found to be warranted.” It further stated that “no disciplinary action was taken by the Judiciary against the officer involved in the incident and she has since left the organisation.”
The investigation was launched after attorney Mark Seepersad found documents which he believed belonged to the High Court in his office in 2010. Seepersad said the documents were among several items left behind by attorney Gerald Ramdeen when he (Ramdeen) vacated the office in October 11, 2010. Seepersad and Ramdeen had shared the law chambers, but he (Seepersad) decided to dissolve the partnership.
In a letter dated November 15, 2010, to then Registrar of the Supreme Court Evelyn-Ann Petersen, Seepersad said the High Court documents included a hardcover notebook, labelled File Movement Book, belonging to Justice Lennox Deyalsingh and several personal documents belonging to or referencing Asha Harripaul. Harripaul was then a judicial support officer at the Supreme Court.
Attorney: I did right thing
Contacted on the issue on Friday, attorney Mark Seepersad said he was never interviewed by the police during their investigation and was unaware they had completed their investigation into the matter. “All this (the outcome of the police investigation) is news to me. I was never interviewed by the police. I spoke very, very briefly to an officer afterwards who told me after he was appointed to investigate the issue.”
Asked if he was satisfied by the police findings, he said: “It is not for me to be satisfied. If you find documents which belong to the High Court you have a choice either to give it to someone who is the proper custodian or you leave it where it is. As far as I am concerned I did the right thing.” Seepersad said after he returned the documents to the High Court, he was asked to give a statement which he did and an investigation was commissioned.
“As far as what occurred that does not concern me, in that it is not for me to be satisfied, it is a matter for the Judiciary and whoever is the investigating officer.” He could not remember what the documents were but said what he saw in the article “seems reasonably accurate.” Seepersad, however, recalled that there were filed and stamped court documents and a file movement book.
Case closeD years ago
When contacted on the statement, attorney Ramdeen said he hoped the Judiciary’s release would put an end to this matter. “I am pleased that the judiciary has issued a statement confirming what I had indicated to the Express, that the investigation was completed four years ago and there was no wrongdoing found on the part of anyone.
“I trust this will put an end to this matter and it is unfortunate that the newspaper would seek to make a link between an investigation that was closed four years ago and found no wrongdoing on the part of anyone and a matter that currently arose four years later.” Ramdeen insisted that the documents were not confidential court documents.