DPP waits on evidence notes to challenge dismissal in David Lee vehicle tax case

DIRECTOR of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Roger Gaspard, SC, is yet to receive the notes of evidence in the dismissed case involving United National Congress (UNC) deputy political leader and Caroni Central MP David Lee and a businessman related to the use of a vehicle tax exemption granted to Lee as an MP.

Gaspard confirmed his office had yet to receive the notes of evidence from the magistrates' court, as it was “not yet ready.”

On April 7, acting Chief Magistrate Christine Charles upheld no-case submissions by attorneys for Lee and firearms dealer Hugh Leong Poi. Charles ruled that the prosecution’s evidence did not cross the threshold to send it to the High Court for trial. That same day, Gaspard’s office initiated the two-step process for a judge’s warrant for the two to have the case possibly reinstated.

The first step involves requesting the notes of evidence in the case from the court. This is supposed to be provided within 14 days. The second step involves sending it on for a judge to review the magistrates’ decision if the DPP believes there is enough evidence to take the matter before a judge.

The judge can grant the warrant if they, like the DPP, disagree with the preliminary decision. If the judge agrees with the discharge, the DPP is then entitled to lodge a final challenge before the Court of Appeal.

In September 2022, the duo was accused of conspiring to defraud the State of $1.4 million in tax revenue related to the importation of a Mercedes Benz G63 AMG valued at over $2 million.

The taxes in the case include $293,094.02 in value-added tax (VAT), $298,650 in motor vehicle tax and $824,548.62 in customs duty.

Lee was accused of falsely claiming that the vehicle was his to claim tax exemptions entitled to him as an MP.

The offences were alleged to have occurred between March 24 and June 8, 2019.

In their no-case submission, Lee’s attorneys argued that there was no evidence of any agreement between Lee and Leong Poi to defraud the State. They submitted that the prosecution had failed to prove the essential elements of the offences of misbehaviour in public office and conspiracy to defraud.

They contended that Lee had disclosed to the Integrity Commission in 2019 and 2020 that he had obtained a $1.3 million loan from Leong Poi to purchase a vehicle for personal use. They further noted that, during cross-examination, it was acknowledged that there were no legal restrictions on the source of funding for a vehicle bought under a parliamentary tax exemption.

The lawyers also contended that the legal ownership of the vehicle remained with Lee, and while it could have been transferred in 2021, there were no legal limitations on who could use or keep a tax-exempt vehicle.

Referring to testimony from a police officer who claimed to have seen the vehicle at Leong Poi’s residence, the defence contended that, even if it were illegal to keep the vehicle at another’s premises, which they argued it was not, the evidence showed it was there only briefly. They described the state’s argument as “mental gymnastics,” insisting that the vehicle’s presence at Leong Poi’s home for a few days over two years amounted to just 0.68 per cent of the time.