A Trinidad and Tobago High Court judge has expressed profound concern over the Director of Public Prosecutions’ explanation for failing to file indictments against three police officers nearly five years after they were committed to stand trial.
Justice Frank Seepersad, presiding over a December 2 status hearing for the officers’ judicial review claim, characterized DPP Roger Gaspard’s explanation as raising “serious constitutional concerns” regarding the justice system’s handling of delayed cases.
The case involves Sgt Lester Garcia, Cpl Sheldon Peterson, and PC Dexter Edwards, who faced three counts of misbehavior in public office since their initial charges in October 2014. The officers were committed to stand trial in January 2020. Tragically, Peterson, who had been suspended pending trial, was killed during a botched robbery in 2024.
Gaspard asserted in an October 21 affidavit that the inability to proceed with indictments stems from incomplete documentation from the Arima Magistrates’ Courts. Specifically, audio recordings of the main witness’s testimony were deemed “indecipherable,” preventing prosecutors from preparing necessary transcripts and conducting a lawful evidence review.
The DPP explained that without usable recordings, his office cannot determine whether a prima facie case exists or assess whether prosecution serves the public interest—a constitutional requirement under section 90 of the Constitution. Although Gaspard instructed his staff to accept the compromised bundle in November 2023, he intended to return the matter to the magistrate for additional evidence. This plan was complicated by the subsequent appointment of presiding magistrate Indrani Cedeno as a temporary judge.
Gaspard revealed his office is currently reviewing approximately 400 capital matters for indictment, with 569 indictments pending at the Port of Spain office at the time of the officers’ committal. He cited systemic challenges, including statutory requirements and limited staffing, noting that delays of several years are not unusual in Trinidad’s justice system.
However, Justice Seepersad challenged the normalization of extended delays, stating the court “should not genuflect to that practice” given the justice system’s obligation to ensure timely trials. The judge indicated that staffing constraints described in the affidavit “may suggest systemic issues” requiring significant resourcing.
The case now raises fundamental constitutional questions about what guarantees exist for accused persons awaiting High Court trials and what constitutes a reasonable timeframe for filing indictments. Justice Seepersad is expected to deliver a ruling on February 24, 2026, which could have significant implications for Trinidad’s criminal justice procedures.