Jagdeo Singh v State of Trinidad and Tobago
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Lord Bingham of Cornhill |
| Judgment Date | 03 August 2005 |
| Neutral Citation | [2005] UKPC 35 |
| Court | Privy Council |
| Docket Number | Appeal No. 54 of 2004 |
| Date | 03 August 2005 |
[2005] UKPC 35
Present at the hearing:-
Lord Bingham of Cornhill
Lord Rodger Earlsferry
Baroness Hale of Richmond
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
Sir Swinton Thomas
Privy Council
[Delivered by Lord Bingham of Cornhill]
On 29 November 2001 the appellant, Mr Jagdeo Singh, was convicted on two counts of corruption before John J and a jury at the Port of Spain Assizes. He was sentenced to serve concurrent sentences of seven years' imprisonment on each count and his appeal against conviction was dismissed by the Court of Appeal (Sharma CJ, Hamel-Smith and Jones JJA) on 15 November 2002. He appealed to the Board by special leave granted on 2 October 2003, contending, first, that the facts alleged against him, even if accepted, disclosed no offence against the statutory provision under which he was convicted and, secondly, that his conviction was vitiated by an inadequate good character direction. On 16 June 2005, for reasons to be given later, the Board allowed the appeal and quashed the appellant's convictions. The Board now gives its reasons for that decision.
The facts
In 1999 the appellant was a 33 year-old lawyer in private practice in Port of Spain. In 1996 he had been retained by Ms Sherry Ann Basdeo, the partner of Mr Rudolph John, to represent John at a preliminary enquiry into a drug trafficking charge, on which he was committed for trial. In the summer of 1999 Basdeo retained the appellant to represent John at this trial, for an agreed fee of $150,000 (according to her) or $120,000 (according to him). Basdeo testified that $12,500 was paid on account of this fee ($10,000 followed by a further payment of $2500) but the appellant said that no payment was made.
On 1 October 1999 John and two others were arrested by the police and charged with possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking. At the request of Basdeo the appellant visited John in police custody and agreed to act for him in this matter. A fee of $50,000 was agreed. The appellant accepted that Basdeo had paid him $10,000 but said that this payment was made on account of the $50,000 fee agreed for this new matter, and he denied receipt of an additional $2,500.
It appears that the appellant informally raised with Magistrate Deborah Thomas-Felix ("the magistrate"), probably on 11 October 1999, the possibility of granting bail to John, but she indicated that in view of other pending charges he might have to apply to a judge in chambers. The appellant said that he would take his chance in the magistrates' court. The appellant made an application for bail on that day, but it was refused. On 1 November 1999 he successfully applied to the magistrate for bail for the defendants arrested with John, but he made no application on his behalf.
On 11 November 1999 there took place a meeting crucial to the outcome of this case. It was between Basdeo and the appellant at the magistrates' court. No one else was present and no record of the meeting was made. According to her, the appellant said that John would get bail but that she had to pay the sum of $40,000 for him to get it, and the money had to be paid to him for him to give to the magistrate and to Corporal Bynoe, the prosecutor. She wanted time to raise the money, but he pressed her for an answer, saying that he had to tell the magistrate whether she would pay the money or not. She agreed to do so. The appellant denied that any such conversation took place. He told Basdeo that he wanted to be paid the balance of his fee, $40,000, and would make an application for bail when he had been paid.
On 18 November 1999 a former client of the magistrate whose wife was a friend of Basdeo visited the magistrate, and the magistrate contacted the police. On the following day she was visited by a senior officer. She also had a conversation with the appellant. He asked her not to grant bail to John (or, according to him, not to deal with the question of bail) since he had not been paid his fee. The magistrate said that there was no problem. According to her evidence, it was not unusual for a magistrate to accommodate attorneys when their fees had not been paid. All three defendants were remanded in custody until 29 November, when the case was adjourned to 1 December.
Basdeo told the appellant that a friend of John's was willing to advance $40,000. On 30 November 1999 a meeting took place at the appellant's office. Present were Basdeo, WPC Bridgelal, posing as the friend who was to advance the money and using the pseudonym of Debbie, and the appellant. All three gave evidence of what was said, but their accounts were significantly different. According to Basdeo, the appellant explained the purpose of the money as being for the magistrate and the prosecutor. This was not corroborated by the WPC. According to her, she said she wanted to be sure the money would be used to get bail for John, and she asked how long it would be after payment of the $40,000 before John would get bail. The appellant said that all the arrangements were already made, that he needed to have the money the day before the hearing, and once he had the money he would contact the magistrate and tell her he had the money and everything would be all right. The appellant said that if he did not get bail he would return the money. The appellant himself could not remember the exact words of the conversation, but if he referred to arrangements being made he would have meant that he would be in court to make the application. He might have said he would return the money if John did not get bail, but if he did it was in jest. It was agreed that the WPC would bring the money to the appellant on 2 December.
The appellant represented John before the magistrate on 1 December, when the case was adjourned to 3 December. Before leaving court the appellant bent over and told the magistrate that he would be applying for bail on the adjourned date, since he would have received his fees. She wished him luck.
On 2 December 1999, Basdeo, the WPC and a number of other police officers went to a Kentucky Fried Chicken branch at Curepe, some 7 miles from the appellant's office. They had with them a bag containing $40,000 in notes supplied by the police. There was little dispute about the course of events which followed. Basdeo telephoned the appellant to say that her car had broken down in the vicinity of the Kentucky Fried Chicken and she could not bring the money to his office. She was not willing to take a taxi, and wanted him to collect it. He suggested that she leave it with his fiancée who lived nearby, but the WPC came on the phone to say that she would prefer to deliver the money to him personally. The appellant then drove to the Kentucky Fried Chicken branch. On arrival, he called Basdeo on his mobile and asked her to bring the money out, and when she delayed he called her again. In due course Basdeo and the WPC came out. The WPC gave him the bag. Basdeo asked if everything would be all right and he said it would. At that moment a number of police officers converged on the car, some of them armed. The appellant said that the bag contained money, he was collecting his fees.
On 13 December 1999 John was granted bail in the sum of $1 million.
The offence
The appellant was charged under section 3(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1987. Section 3 provides:
"3.(1) Every person who, by himself or by or in conjunction with any other person, corruptly solicits or receives, or agrees to receive, for himself or for any other person, any gift, loan, fee, reward, or advantage whatsoever, as an inducement to, or reward for, or otherwise on account of, an agent doing or forbearing to do anything in respect of any matter or transaction whatsoever, actual or proposed, in which the State or a public body is concerned, is guilty of an offence.
(2) Every person who, by himself or by or in conjunction with any other person, corruptly gives, promises or offers any gift, loan, fee, reward, or advantage whatsoever, to any person, whether for the benefit of that person or of another person, as an inducement to, or reward for, or otherwise on account of, an agent doing or forbearing to do anything in respect of any matter or transaction whatsoever, actual or proposed, in which the State or a public body is concerned, is guilty of an offence."
In section 2 of the Act, "agent" is defined to include "any person serving under the State or other public body or holding a public office", a definition plainly apt to describe a magistrate or a police corporal acting as prosecutor, each of whom may conveniently be described as a public officer. The first count of the indictment charged the appellant with corruptly soliciting, the second with corruptly receiving. Section 3 is closely modelled on section 1 of the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889 (United Kingdom), although that Act made reference only to members, officers or servants of public bodies.
It was common ground at the trial that the appellant had never suggested or offered a bribe to the magistrate or the prosecutor. It was not suggested that he had authority to act on behalf of either of them or that he had any intention to offer a bribe to either of them. Still less was it suggested that either of them would have been willing to countenance such a proceeding. On behalf of the appellant, Mr Fitzgerald QC submitted that acceptance of these facts was fatal to the prosecution. The object of the section was to ensure that public officers should not be influenced in performance of their public duties by any hope or prospect of any pecuniary or other advantage. Thus the receipt of any such benefit is proscribed. So also is the soliciting of such an advantage. And it makes no difference that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Henry v R
...3 All E.R. 241, dicta of Lord Taylor, C.J. referred to. (16) R. v. Whittaker (D.), 2010 (1) CILR 29, referred to. (17) Singh v. State, [2006] 1 W.L.R. 146; [2005] 4 All E.R. 781; [2006] 2 LRC 409; (2005), 68 W.I.R. 424; [2005] UKPC 35, applied. (18) Teeluck v. State, [2005] 1 W.L.R. 2421; [......
-
Vasyli v R; R v Vasyli
...UKPC 15 mentioned Eversley Thompson v. The Queen [1998] AC 811 mentioned France & anor v. The Queen [2012] UKPC 28 applied Jagdeo Singh v. State of Trinidad and Tobago [2006] 1 WLR 146 mentioned Jamal Glinton v. Regina, SCCrApp No. 113 of 2012 mentioned Kenyatta Lewis v. The Attorney Gener......
-
Black v R
...78; 2009 S.L.T. 67 considered Galbraith v R [1981] 1 W.L.R. 1039 applied Hunter v The Queen [2003] UKPC 69 considered Jagdeo Singh v The State of Trinidad and Tobago [2006] 1 WLR 146 considered Kevano Musgrove et al v Comissioner of Police SCCrApp 140 of 2012 and 22 of 2014 followed Kzen......
-
Omar Anderson v R
...Board examined the cases of Bally Sheng Balson v The State [2005] UKPC 2, Brown (Uriah) v The Queen [2006] 1 AC 1, and Jagdeo Singh v State of Trinidad and Tobago [2005] UKPC 35. In Balson, (which was a case of murder, in which all the circumstantial evidence pointed to the appellant as t......