Bail hearing set for Oct 8 – Minister Lee remains in custody

Housing Minister and Caroni Central MP David Lee, who was arrested on Tuesday along with businessman and licensed firearms dealer Hugh Leong Poi – months after fraud charges against them were dropped – is said to have remained in police custody overnight.

This as an emergency bail application filed before a High Court judge on Tuesday afternoon, by the attorneys for both Lee and Leong Poi, was listed for hearing on October 8.

Hours earlier, on October 7, a media release from the TTPS confirmed that judicial warrants (judge's warrants) were executed against both men, following instructions from Director of Public Prosecutions Roger Gaspard, SC.

According to the release, Commissioner of Police Allister Guevarro received the warrants around 12.15 pm. Lee surrendered to police just before 3 pm at the Police Administration Building, Port of Spain, where the warrant was executed. Leong Poi was arrested at his home in south Trinidad.

The DPP’s application was made under Section 23(5) of the Indictable Offences (Preliminary Enquiry) Act, which allows the prosecution to seek to reinstate a matter dismissed at the magistrates’ court once a judge reviews the evidence.

After they were processed, attorneys for both men applied for bail. Newsday understands Leong Poi collapsed and had to be taken to hospital where he remained warded overnight.

It was not immediately known where both Lee and Leong Poi were being held whether at a police station or at a medical facility under police guard.

ATTORNEY IN SHOCK

Leong Poi's attorney Pamela Elder, SC, said on Tuesday night that she was shocked that the warrant was issued without prior notice of the application to the defence, as correspondence was sent to the DPP since April 22, setting out Leong Poi’s position in detail and requesting that the defence be heard on any application for a judge’s warrant and that the correspondence be brought to the attention of the presiding judge.

She said no response to this correspondence was ever received from the DPP.

"The judge’s warrant is seriously flawed," she declared, adding that she was bemused that the warrant states an offence for which Leong Poi was never charged, and for which he could never be charged. "The warrant is seriously flawed as a result of that egregious error.”

According to that warrant, issued by Justice Hayden St Clair-Douglas, Leong Poi of Sea View Parkway, Gulf View, La Romain, together with another person, were charged with conspiracy to defraud and misbehaviour in public office.

St Clair-Douglas said he was of the opinion that the evidence before acting Chief Magistrate Christine Charles “was sufficient to put the said Hugh Leong Poi together with another person, on trial for conspiracy to defraud and misbehaviour in public office.

“This is to command you forthwith to apprehend Hugh Leong Poi and to convey the said Hugh Leong Poi to the Port of Spain Prisons…and there deliver him to the keeper of the said prisons together with this warrant." The warrant was signed by St Clair-Douglas on October 6.

On April 7, Charles upheld no-case submissions by defence attorneys, discharging Lee and Leong Poi on allegations of conspiracy to defraud the State of $1.4 million in taxes tied to the importation of a Mercedes Benz G63 AMG valued at over $2 million.

Leong Poi, proprietor of Sport Outlet Limited and a licensed gun dealer, was accused of conspiring with Lee in the alleged fraud.

During the preliminary inquiry, Lee’s attorneys argued that the prosecution failed to prove the elements of misbehaviour in public office or conspiracy.

They said the loan arrangement between Lee and Leong Poi was disclosed to the Integrity Commission and that there were no restrictions on who could fund the purchase of a vehicle bought under parliamentary tax exemptions.

The magistrate agreed, ruling that the prosecution’s evidence did not meet the threshold to send the matter to trial before a High Court judge and jury.

However, the DPP quickly signalled his intention to challenge the ruling, requesting the notes of evidence from the magistrates’ court so the matter could be reviewed by a judge, who has the authority to reinstate the charges.