HELEN GARLICK ISSUES UPDATE ON SIPT CASES
“The Plea and Directions Hearing in this case has been adjourned to September 16th. I have made it clear that I will not comment on the evidence in this case or on any other issue that is for the court of trial to decide, except that where it is right to do so, I will correct mis statements made in public by other people and will also provide as much information as I can about the proceedings.
“There are currently 10 defendants awaiting trial before the Supreme Court. In May 2012 all of them were sent for trial on all charges by Justice Ramsey Hale. Before a trial date can be fixed there are several preliminary matters that need to be decided by the trial Judge in Plea and Directions Hearings. The prosecution have been ready to conduct a Hearing since July 2012 and all the necessary evidence and written submissions have been served on the accused.
“The reason for the continued delay is that the majority of the accused have applied for and been granted legal aid but have rejected the rates fixed by the Registrar and challenged that decision by applying for Judicial Review. The SIPT had no involvement in the Legal Aid decision, this was a matter between the accused and the Registrar. However, we have been joined to the Judicial Review proceedings as an interested party. The application for judicial review was rejected after a hearing before on 8th November 2012. An appeal was also rejected unanimously by the Court of Appeal on 24th January 2013.
“The accused concerned are now applying for leave to appeal to the Privy Council. That application has not yet been made. If they are refused permission to appeal by the Court of Appeal, they have the right to renew their application directly to the Privy Council and it could therefore be some months before this matter is resolved finally.
“The accused have the right to exhaust all legal avenues of appeal but there should be no misunderstanding that however long it may take, the law must take its course and there will be a trial.
“As to the position of Michael Misick, his claim for political asylum is being dealt with in accordance with Brazilian law and the SIPT and the AG are not parties to that process. The request for his extradition could not be dealt with until the asylum claim was decided. The claim had been refused at first instance but he had lodged an appeal to the Minister for Justice. On Monday 15th April the Minister refused his appeal. I am advised that the extradition process can therefore begin. However there should also be no misunderstanding first that, however long it may take, if Michael Misick is returned to the TCI, he will stand trial and second that in the meantime the trial of his co accused will continue.”