Queen’s Counsel Andrew Mitchell, the lead prosecutor in the Helen Garlick-led Special Investigations and Prosecution Team (SIPT) that is investigating corruption in the Turks and Caicos Islands, is now spearheading a team of high profile lawyers who have filed a major law suit against Sir David Simmons, the former Barbados Chief Justice who is presently chairman of this county’s Integrity Commission.
Mitchell, a British lawyer, is the lead lawyer for Austin “Jack” Warner, Trinidad’s former Acting Prime Minister and Minister of National Security and a sitting MP, who has been accused of corruption and committing massive fraud following a Commission of Inquiry that was headed by Sir David earlier this year.
Mitchell is representing Warner along with Keith Scotland and Asha Watkins-Montserin, said the Trinidadian MP was defamed in the April 2013 report which was done by Sir David. They want a “substantial amount” of money in damages.
In a twist of irony, Andrew Mitchell, the sharp and flamboyant SIPT lawyer, is being retained at a rate of at least US$2000 daily to prosecute allegations of corruption by former TCI government officials, local lawyers and developers arising from a Commission of Inquiry led by Sir Robin Auld.
Observers have been commenting on what they described as the double standards and irony of a lawyer like Andrew Mitchell prosecuting persons in TCI based on allegations in Sir Robin Auld’s Commission of Inquiry Report, while at the same time defending a sitting MP in another Caribbean country who is complaining about allegations and statements made about him in another commission of inquiry report. Questions are now being raised as to whether persons named in Sir Robin Auld’s report and who claimed to have already been tried in the court of public opinion, can follow Mitchell and his associate lawyers lead and take a similar course of action.
In a letter dated August 12, 2013, Scotland confirmed that Mitchell is the lead lawyer in the case against Sir David.
The letter stated: “My client (Jack Warner) is concerned about and complains of certain defamatory statements attributable to and/or published by you and contained in the CONCACAF Integrity- Committee Report of Investigation dated 18 April 2013. The Report was released and made public on 19 April 2013 and also placed on the World Wide Web.”
Warner, who left the Trinidad Government a few weeks ago under a cloud of controversy, is now the interim leader of the Independent Liberal Party and the party’s elected Member of Parliament for Chaguanas West, which he won in a by-election. He was in the footballing world one of the foremost leaders of the development of football in the region and was recognised across the world as someone who had done more than anyone to develop the game of Football in the CONCACAF region.
The letter from Andrew Mitchell’s legal team pointed to certain statements in Sir David’s report which allegedly defamed Warner.
A section of the Sir David Simmons report stated: “The evidence reviewed by the Integrity Committee establishes that Jack Warner committed fraud against CONCACAF and FIFA in connection with the ownership and development of the Centre of Excellence. Warner committed fraud in (two ways. First Warner secured funds from CONCACAF and FIFA by falsely representing, and intentionally creating a false impression, that the СОЕ was owned by CONCACAF when he knew that the property was in fact owned by his own companies. Second, Warner induced FIFA to transfer funds that were intended for development of the СОЕ to himself personally by falsely representing that the bank accounts to which FIFA should send the funds were CONCACAF accounts when he knew that in fact he controlled them personally.”
Similar to what has been argued by many persons in the Turks and Caicos Islands with the publication of Sir Robin Auld’s report, Jack Warner’s lawyers said the publication of such defamatory statements has “caused and continues to cause him enormous professional and personal embarrassment, distress and vilification and has adversely affected his professional and political career”.
The letter continued: “For example, in a Reuters report dated 19 April 2013 headlined “Warner and Blazer accused of fraud by CONCACAF”9 it was reported that one CONCACAF delegate described my client and Mr. Chuck Blazer as “white collar thieves” As a consequence of the said damning, unjustifiable, reckless and clearly ii statements published in the local, regional and international media and on the Wide Web, my client’s good name and reputation has been and continues to be damaged. “
Andrew Mitchell and his legal colleagues are demanding an unqualified public retraction of all of the allegations referred to about Jack Warner in Sir David’s report and a proper apology to him on terms to be agreed.
The public apology is required to be released to the international media and placed on the World Wide Web and in a manner no less prominent than the allegations complained of. They also want an undertaking by you never to repeat the said allegations or make similar allegations and the payment of a substantial sum in damages to a charity or charities of Jack Warner’s choice to demonstrate the baselessness of the allegations and to compensate him for the injury to his reputation, financial loss and the considerable distress that he has suffered.
Andrew Mitchell and his team of lawyers are complaining that all those statements which were made and published about their client mean and were understood to mean that Warner committed the criminal offence of fraud against CONCACAF and FIFA; that he committed the criminal offence of larceny by stealing funds; that he participated and/or acquiesced in criminal activity; that he is dishonest; a fraudster; a criminal; and is not to be trusted.
The letter from Mitchell’s legal partners added: “You have categorised the said statements as findings of fact in the Report and there cannot be disputed that these statements constitute allegations of fact as opposed to comments. Mr Warner is clear that you knew or ought to have known that any allegation of criminal fraud on his part should have been proven beyond reasonable doubt. However, in the Report, you have deliberately made your most damning findings of criminal culpability on a balance of probabilities, notwithstanding your statement at page 67, paragraph 6.2 of the Report that: “The Committee was not in a position to apply the more stringent tests of proof that would apply to a case in a court of law and hesitates to make dogmatic statements as to the guilt of any person. In that regard, further investigation would be required.”
In the letter which was written to Sir David, Mitchell’s legal team stressed that in light of the numerous clear allegations of fraudulent and criminal conduct, which were also highlighted in the Report’s Executive Summary, they can only conclude that the report was “actuated by a desire to castigate, malign, convict and punish my client by the publication to the world at large of your findings of fact”.
The letter added: “This conclusion is further substantiated by the fact that the Report commissioned and/or paid for by CONCACAF had the appearance of targeted judgment for CONCACAF and in this regard the Report and attendant investigation cannot be described as independent. In fact the Epilogue to the Report (page \1 3) indicates the true motive of the Report and its Authors in advancing the interests of the new and present CONCACAF administration, when you stated: “… and we hope this investigation and its findings and conclusions assist the new administration of CONCACAF in achieving its worthy objectives – transparency, accountability and integrity. “
Another section of Sir David’s report stated: “CONCACAF and FIFA were both victims of Warner’s fraud. Warner’s conduct was primarily directed at securing funds and a loan guarantee from FIFA, and Warner succeeded in obtaining such funds and guarantee through fraud Warner’s fraudulent conduct also deprived CONCACAF of the financial assistance that FIFA provided to the organization with the intention of supporting CONCACAF *s efforts to develop football in the region. Allocation of these funds to the СОЕ required CONCACAF’s approval which Warner obtained through fraud CONCACAF was also fraudulently induced to undertake obligations to repay funds that Warner obtained for the СОЕ in the form of loans to CONCACAF: In the end\ as a result of his fraudulent conduct. Warner CONCACAF and FIFA of approximately $26 million, and Warner obtained title to the СОЕ property) which rightfully belongs to CONCACF.
Source-TCI Sun
