Lawyer jailed 14 days for contempt

AN ATTORNEY, on suspension, has been jailed for 14 days for failing to repay $109,000 to a San Juan finance manager for the purchase of US currency in 2022.

Justice Frank Seepersad made the order on April 14, committing Kavita Crystal Persad to the Women’s Prison in Golden Grove, Arouca, finding her in contempt for breaching two previous court orders.

The judge also gave the court’s marshals the power to arrest Persad, of Old Factory Road, Piarco, to take her to prison to serve her term of simple imprisonment.

In his oral ruling, Seepersad said Persad ought to have known adherence to the rule of law was required.

The judge had been asked to jail Persad for failing to abide by two previous court orders to repay Kyle Hope-Singh.

According to the evidence before the judge, in September 2022, Persad agreed to “sell” Hope-Singh US$14,540 so he could purchase a portable solar power station.

Hope-Singh’s initial lawsuit said he was referred to Persad as a reliable attorney who had access to US currency. He transferred TT$109,050 to Persad’s bank account for the purchase of the portable solar power station, and when he did not receive it, he asked for a refund.

This, too, he did not receive, and his lawsuit said Persad “continued to give false assurances and blanket promises” for the refund. His lawsuit also contends that Persad told him the money was under investigation by the Financial Intelligence Unit and the funds had not cleared, so she was unable to access the money to repay him. It also said she told him several times to meet her at the bank to collect the money, but she never showed up. In November 2022, she allegedly sent him screenshots of a wire transfer for the refund, but the lawsuit said he never received any money.

She also repeatedly gave verbal assurances and promises to pay by a manager’s cheque, asking him to hold his hand on legal action after she received a pre-action protocol letter.

Seepersad noted that having regard to the case’s procedural history, Persad was served with the initial contempt proceedings, filed on May 24, 2024. She entered a consent order on July 9, 2024, acknowledging the debt and agreeing to pay by August 12, 2024. Persad failed to do so and was also served with the second application in February 2025.

He said it was difficult for Persad to contend there was a breach of natural justice since she was aware that contempt proceedings could be reinstituted if she failed to abide by the terms of the agreement, which, he said, she entered “of her own volition.”

He also pointed out that the arrangement was not one “which accords with the law,” since there was no evidence that Persad had a licence or authority to engage in the sale of US currency.

“Adherence to the rule of law is required of attorneys. And, one should always try to ensure that one does not embark upon a course of action that flouts the law in any way.”

“It is not lost upon this court that the judgment debtor was a member of the profession and was qualified as an attorney-at-law. When the consent order was entered, it was not done by a lay person but an attorney at law entitled to practice in this jurisdiction.”

“And the court has absolutely no doubt in its own mind that Ms Persad understood the nature of the obligation that she was entering into, having agreed and signed a consent order that this judgment debt would have been repaid and that there would be consequences which would flow in default of her ability to comply with the terms of the order,” he said as he dismissed her application to dismiss the contempt and committal application.

While acknowledging her reasons for not abiding by the consent order, which included personal medical issues and financial difficulties at the time, the judge said, “That still does not obviate the need to comply with the order of the court.”

“The rule of law, which is heavily dependent upon the compliance with orders of the court, and the effective administration of justice, is dependent upon the court's ability to properly enforce its orders and its judgments.

“In this society, there is a heightened degree of lawlessness, and that is the circumstance that this court will not tolerate, nor will the court tolerate disregard for its orders.

“The compliance with orders of the court and the obligations which are imposed upon parties, especially when consent orders are entered into, is not optional. It is mandatory. “And unless or until an order has been set aside, the terms of that order must be complied with.”

Seepersad said it was open to Persad to ask the court to vary the consent order, but she did not, nor did she communicate her hardships to the court, before ordering her immediate imprisonment.

“Regrettably, the rationale now being advanced for the breaches is irrelevant and of no moment.”

In earlier submissions, Hope-Singh’s attorney, Brandon Rajkumar, said another judge made a similar committal and contempt order against her earlier this year in another case. The Court of Appeal has since stayed that order on appeal.

“She does not deserve leniency, Rajkumar said, adding that Persad has “repeatedly been breaching the courts’ orders and asking for time. She is undeserving of leniency.”

Persad, who represented herself at Monday’s hearing, did not object to a costs order made against her for $7,500.

A notice, suspending Persad from practising, was gazetted on July 5, 2024.