Home / View Point / Letters to the Editor / Dear Editor: Martin Daly SC should explain finer points of Vincent Nelson’s indemnity deal

Dear Editor: Martin Daly SC should explain finer points of Vincent Nelson’s indemnity deal

“[…] I would also like Mr [Martin] Daly SC to explain, in his column, why he thinks that the DPP took the correct decision to discontinue, for the time being, the charges against Messrs Anand Ramlogan, SC, and Gerard Ramdeen—having regard to all the documentary and other information in the public domain, as serialised in the local press…”

The following Letter to the Editor regarding the view of Martin Daly SC on an Indemnity Agreement granted to former British QC Vincent Nelson by ex-attorney general Faris Al-Rawi was submitted to Wired868 by Louis Williams of St Augustine:

Former British Queen’s Counsel Vincent Nelson.

As I understand it, I heard Mr Martin Daly, SC, indicated, in a radio interview (i95.5fm on Thursday 27 October 2022) that the Attorney General had utilised an “old-fashioned” version of the sub judice rule in his refusal to offer his comments, as requested by the Law Association of Trinidad and Tobago (LATT), on certain aspects of the Vincent Nelson matter—regarding the Indemnity Agreement, now being litigated in the court.

I always thought that a matter was either sub judice, or it was not. Perhaps Mr Daly can use his column to educate the public on the sub judice rule, and the current standard as evinced by case law.

I would also like Mr Daly to explain, in his column, why he thinks that the DPP took the correct decision to discontinue, for the time being, the charges against Messrs Anand Ramlogan, SC, and Gerard Ramdeen—having regard to all the documentary and other information in the public domain, as serialised in the local press.

Photo: Martin Daly, SC, is a former Independent Senator, a lover of pan and a columnist of long standing
(Courtesy UWI.sta.edu)

Mr Nelson has stated his unwillingness to testify in the “criminal matter” while a civil matter concerning the Indemnity Agreement is before the court.

Perhaps Mr Daly could explain in his column why the DPP ought not to seek to enforce his plea agreement with Mr Nelson and compel Mr Nelson to testify—given that Mr Nelson received a much lighter sentence in exchange for his testimony, and other information against Messrs Ramlogan and Ramdeen.

Mr Daly could also explain, in his column, what redress the Government or the public has if any DPP is delinquent/negligent/derelict in the performance of his duties, and/or takes a decision that is patently erroneous.

About Letters to the Editor

Letters to the Editor
Want to share your thoughts with Wired868? Email us at editor@wired868.com. Please keep your letter between 300 to 600 words and be sure to read it over first for typos and punctuation. We don't publish anonymously unless there is a good reason, such as an obvious threat of harassment or job loss.

Check Also

Dear Editor: Play Whe is emblematic of Trini superstition—and it could be a bonding exercise

“[…] My father used to religiously record the Play Whe results until my inquisitiveness caused …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

2 comments

  1. Stephen needs to read and digest the contents of my letter.

    The headline was provided by the editor, not me.

    Apparently, Stephen read the headline, and misled himself.

    Please Stephen read and digest the contents of my letter and then offer an intelligent comment. Do not sell yourself short. You are better than that!

  2. I think you should contact Al Warie, Armour, Roger Kawalsingh, Keith Scotland, MENDES and Peterson who are in. Superior position to explain same to you.