DPP insists there are no delays in Dana Seetahal murder case

Dana Seetahal, shot dead in her car on May 4, 2014. -

Director of Public Prosecutions Roger Gaspard, SC, has defended the independence of his office and again maintained that there were no delays in filing an indictment against Earl Richards, one of the men accused of murdering former prosecutor Dana Seetahal, SC.

Seetahal was gunned down in her car on May 4, 2014.

Gaspard, in his affidavit, dated August 15, responded to complaints by Richards and his lawyers of an “unacceptable and unconstitutional” delay in filing an indictment.

“I have not yet made a decision to indict. There is nothing to challenge,” Gaspard said, urging the court to deny the relief Richards has sought in his judicial review claim.

“I do not believe that the claimant has demonstrated that he is being treated unfairly or that his case is progressing any slower than any other criminal and/or murder case in Trinidad and Tobago, or that he has been denied due process.”

According to Gaspard, the claim was “premature.” He also admitted he has never seen an application that seeks to “pre-emptively” challenge a prosecutorial decision that has not been made or ask for disclosure that could affect public opinion and prejudice the right to a fair hearing if criminal proceedings are commenced.

Gaspard reiterated his earlier position articulated in a status report in response to an order of High Court judge Carol Gobin. Gobin had ordered Gaspard to explain the delay and confirm whether the prosecution would proceed.

Richards and his co-accused, Rajaee Ali, have complained about a delay by the Office of the DPP to file an indictment in their case.

Richards’ lawyers, Criston J Williams and Aaron Lewis, had earlier rejected Gaspard’s explanation, saying it violated their client’s right to a fair hearing under the Constitution. They argue the delay shows prosecutorial bias and misconduct, and they have demanded that the DPP decide against filing an indictment within 14 days.

However, Gaspard again confirmed no decision has been made to discontinue the case, saying there was strong evidence to support the murder charge. He said he was “inclined towards indicting” Richards, but must first be satisfied that the case is evidentially sound and in the public interest.

The DPP said Richards was committed to stand trial in July 2020 during the pandemic. His office only received the 8,100-page electronic committal bundle from the Judiciary in early 2024.

That material is being reviewed, though Gaspard is still seeking original documents to complete his assessment. Gaspard said he was told by an official from the Judiciary that the will not be receiving the original documents but he is still continuing his efforts to obtain the original committal bundle to reconcile the electronic record. Gaspard also noted that the Judiciary has taken the position that the electronic bundle complies with the court's practice direction issued in May 2024. However, he said he received the committal bundle after the practice direction came into effect. He, nevertheless, remains optimistic he will receive the originals from the Judiciary to complete his assessment.

He also referred to a backlog of 400 capital cases and more than 500 pending indictments at his office.

Gaspard said the case involved complex evidence, including call data, intercepted communications, and CCTV footage, and cannot be rushed without risking errors. He dismissed other claims made by Richards as “rumours, hearsay and speculation,” insisting his role is limited to analysing evidence and advising the police, who are responsible for investigations.

Gaspard said he could not fix a date to file an indictment, but noted that the case was not out of the ordinary since several other cases took longer to get to the committal or indictment stage.

He also explained the law and the process used to review a case.

Addressing his office’s relationship with the police, Gaspard said the TTPS alone was responsible for all criminal investigations, as he does not investigate crimes which would be” ultra vires” his constitutional remit and would encroach on the police’s role.

Gaspard said the DPP’s role is to provide legal support, guidance and advice to the police to facilitate the collection of credible and relevant evidence by law enforcement. He also said this support allows him to stay up-to-date with the progress of investigations, so if there is any evidence, information, material or evidential lead not investigated, he can request a probe into any line of inquiry.

Gaspard said that when matters of public interest reach him for consideration to prosecute alleged offences, he may recommend the police investigate, since without such, he would have no material or objective basis to exercise his prosecutorial discretion.

However, he noted there were times when the police may come to him to determine if there were grounds for an investigation, but he made it clear, his recommendation was not a mandate, as it was exclusively up to the police to decide to act on his advice.

He said there were times when they decided not to investigate even though he advised there were sufficient grounds to do so.

Gaspard also agreed to the police’s position not to provide information sought in a freedom of information request in December 2024. The police said they could not disclose information potentially prejudicial to the matter.

He also said Richards’s complaints could be raised at his trial in his defence. Gaspard reminded Richards would already have the evidence the prosecution would lead at a trial, and if there was new evidence, his prosecutors would have to make an application, which the defence would have an opportunity to object to.

Gaspard said public disclosure of material can adversely impact any criminal trial if commenced, including scaring off potential witnesses or causing them to perjure themselves. He said Richards will receive any disclosure that has not yet been made at the appropriate stage to give him time to prepare his defence.