Ex-accused in Naipaul-Coolman case wants info from trial

A FORMER accused in the Vindra Naipaul-Coolman murder trial will only get material the police have in their possession, that may be used at a retrial of two men still before the courts, once redacted.

Justice Ricky Rahim said the material to be provided to Shervon Peters is to be redacted to conceal the identity, address and information of confidential informants and witnesses.

He also declared that the decision of the police to refuse access to that material not used in the inquiry and at the trial was irrational, unreasonable and in breach of the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act.

In May 2016, Peters and seven others were found not guilty of Naipaul-Coolman’s murder while a retrial was ordered for two others.

One accused man, Allan “Scanny” Martin, was killed in a shootout with police after he and two others escaped from the Frederick Street prison on July 24, 2015, while the trial was taking place at the Port of Spain High Court.

A day before the four-year limitation period for filing a civil claim was due to expire, Peters and eight others filed a malicious prosecution case against the State.

The matter was not defended by the State and default judgment was entered in their favour. The matter is now before a master of the High Court for the assessment of damages.

Peters then filed a freedom of information request for a series of documents from the police, including the file submitted by the police to the Director of Public Prosecutions; copies of minutes, instructions, and advice of the DPP; testimony of witnesses, and the entire file in the DPP’s possession.

Rahim said much of the information asked for was not in the police’s possession so the request was “misplaced” as investigators “cannot be expected to provide copies of documents they do not possess."

He also said much of what Peters had asked for was no longer relevant to the issue of liability or aggravated or exemplary damages.

Rahim said if Peters wanted transcripts of witnesses’ evidence from the inquiry and the trial, he just had to make a request to the Judiciary and pay for them.

In his ruling, Rahim said the police’s decision that the documents requested were exempt under the FOIA, was “rational and reasonable” given the nature of the relationship between the DPP and the police and the purpose of his advice in a case.

On the request for the identity of confidential sources and witnesses, the judge said there was a retrial and there was a need to protect the two from their trials being prejudiced and also protect witnesses.

In allowing Peters access to only unused material that may be used as fresh evidence at the retrial, Justice Rahim dismissed the other parts of Peters' claim.

Peters was represented by Anand Ramlogan, SC, Ganesh Saroop and Alana Rambaran while the Police Commissioner was represented by Vanessa Gopaul.