In defence of AG Armour and perjury claims

Israel B. Rajah-Khan SC

Many uninitiated and uninformed lawyers of the criminal justice system in TT, including Karen Nunez-Tesheira, a former PNM finance minister and senior tutor of the Hugh Wooding Law School are alluding that Attorney General Reginald Armour SC lied in his affidavit which was submitted to a Miami court when he stated that he was a junior lawyer with senior silk Allan Alexander SC when they represented Brian Kuei Tung et al in criminal proceedings for fraud in TT.

Karen Nunez-Tesheira was quoted by Anna Ramdass Express journalist in the July 18, as saying: “A mess was created when Attorney General Reginald Armour SC stated that he was junior counsel on affidavit when in fact he was a senior counsel...there is no way that he did not know that he was a senior counsel. A senior counsel is a very serious thing. You know how many people want to be a senior counsel and can’t be. That is the height of your achievement as a lawyer."

Anna Ramdass went on to state in her published news article that Nunez-Tesheira acknowledged Armour as her friend and quoted her as saying “I think he should do the right thing and resign and not be asked to resign.”

I myself in a letter addressed to the members of the legal profession in support of AG Armour stated that “no attorney will ever forget the year he was awarded silk. Armour was awarded silk in 2003 and in 2004 he was on record as representing Kuei Tung et al and being led by Alexander.

I opined that what Armour meant, and it could only mean, that he was junior to Alexander even if he carried the rank of silk at the time. And this was a fact – he was Alexander’s junior in the criminal proceedings in which they were defending Kuei Tung.

Support for describing himself as not being a leader or on silk status of the defence but junior to Alexander comes from Rule 29(3) Code of Ethics of the Legal Professional Act which states:“When more than one attorney-at-law appears as an advocate for the same party in the same proceedings, who shall lead the conduct of the party’s case subject to the instructions of the client, be settled by the attorneys-at-law representing the party before they appear in court and shall not be altered during the course of the proceedings and the leader shall have all authority over the conduct of the case.”

So all of this hullabaloo of Armour deliberately misleading the Miami court because he had stated that he was a junior counsel in the matter when in fact his status was that of senior counsel is hogwash. Yes, he carried the rank of SC at the time, but his role in the criminal proceedings was that of a junior to Alexander.

I wish to bring it to the attention of the public at large and the uninformed attorneys on this issue that as junior silk (and at that time 20 years ago, Armour had one year of experience as silk) the leader of the case would permit his junior if he/she is knowledgeable and capable and experienced to actively involve her/himself in defending the client. But if she/he were a novice in the area of law which governs the matter before the court the junior (whether he is silk or not) will be relegated to take notes of the proceedings, do some research on legal issues which may arise ex-improviso (by surprise) and or cross-examine non-contentious or formal witnesses. He/she may even be permitted to make legal submissions on the issues of the admissibility of unimportant evidence in the case. What is actually taking place in this scenario is that the junior silk would be undergoing “on-the-job training and experience” in an area of law in which he is not au-courant or an aficionado or an expert.

It must be brought to the attention of the public and the hundreds of junior attorneys who voted on the no vote confidence motion “that 20 years ago, and even at present, Reginald Armour was not a criminal advocate. Hence his minor role as defence counsel in this massive fraud case. And I repeat for emphasis that at the time he represented Kuei Tung et al he was not a criminal advocate, and still, as of today, he is not one. He is a civil law expert par excellence and aficionado in civil law.

Permit me to give you an actual example of senior lead counsel in a case in which two prominent and knowledgeable and experienced senior counsel appeared with me. I was retained by Director of Public Prosecutions Roger Gaspard SC as special lead prosecutor in the Vindra Naipaul-Coolman kidnapping/murder against 12 accused. And my fiat stated that Gilbert Peterson SC and the late Dana Seetahal SC would be appearing in the matter with me.

They were my juniors, in spite of the fact that they were very competent and experienced advocates at the criminal bar. But since I had “all authority” to lead the conduct of the prosecution on behalf of the State, it was my prerogative to decide what role my junior SCs would play in the matter. Suffice it to say that Peterson and Seetahal played major roles (up to the time she was murdered) because they possessed the necessary experience and knowledge of the criminal law. And I dare say that if any one of them were a civil law silk – and he/she did not possess the knowledge and experience of a criminal advocate he/she would have been relegated (as Armour was in the Kuei Tung criminal matter) to the role of note-taking, researcher of the law, cross-examination of formal witnesses and maybe making legal submissions on unimportant matters which would not affect the guilt of the accused.

And I repeat, as aforementioned, that was exactly what Armour was permitted to do, in a very limited way, by lead defence counsel Alexander.

Thus when the Attorney General stated that he recalled 20 years ago, and thus stated in his affidavit, that he was a junior attorney to Alexander and that he took notes and did some research he was speaking the truth. He omitted to state that he cross-examined two non-contentious/formal witnesses and made legal submissions on the admissibility of evidence.

His detractors and a couple hundred uninitiated lawyers of the criminal justice system formed the erroneous view that the Attorney General committed perjury on account of what he stated in his affidavit.

But perjury is not a strict-liability offence. If Armour omitted to give the details of his cross-examination of the formal witnesses, did not mention the legal submissions he had on the admissibility of unimportant evidence and also described himself as a junior attorney in the matter when he carried the rank of silk – this is not perjury. The criminal offence of perjury is when one swears to some important/vital/crucial issue knowing same to be false which constitutes prima facie evidence of perjury and or misbehaviour in public office.

The crime of perjury carries a very high degree of mens rea, that is guilty intent. There must be unambiguous prima facie evidence of “mens rea” that an accused stated something on oath which he knows to be false.

There is not a scintilla of evidence in Armour's affidavit which supports the “mens rea” guilty intent that he told lies and thus there is no prima facie evidence of perjury. And if there is no prima facie evidence of perjury, there is no issue of misbehaviour in public office.

I wish to conclude by categorically stating that the more I delve and research this matter of mens rea of perjury or misbehaviour in public office, the more I am convinced that Armour did nothing criminally or morally wrong.

I am one of the leaders of the criminal bar in TT and as such it is my duty to defend the titular head of the legal profession if the evidence points in the direction that he did nothing wrong. And my fellow attorneys-at-law and citizens of TT can rest assured that if the evidence in this matter pointed to Armour having committed the offence of perjury, I would be the first to call upon the police to investigate the matter, gather the evidence, consult the DPP with the intent of arresting him and placing him before the courts.

I conclude that Armour, in spite of being careless in signing an incomplete affidavit of his role in the Kuei Tung criminal matter, did “no wrong.”