Pile of new evidence stalls Watson case

Canover Watson and his lawyer, Ben Tonner

(CNS): Police claim to have received around a trillion bytes of digital information in the corruption and money laundering case against Canover Watson, the former HSA chair, and his former personal assistant, Miriam Rodrigues. In a successful application Wednesday to postpone the trial scheduled for next month until November, the new deputy director of public prosecutions, Patrick Moran, told the court that just this week the police had received reams of new evidence from Watson’s former workplace relating to the allegations against him.

The crown’s lawyer said that there had been numerous new developments since Watson was charged and since a trial date was set. The police and prosecutors had an obligation to the courts, the public and the defendants, he said, to examine the evidence given to them thoroughly, and the worst case scenario, given that so much information had been handed over, was that it could take as much as six months to review it.

The lawyer said that on one disc alone there were more than 3,500 email threads with attachments which were sent by Watson on his work computer. He claimed the information could all relate to the connection the crown alleges Watson has to AIS, the company that won two lucrative contacts at the hospital while Watson was the HSA board’s chair and which form the basis of the corruption accusations.

The crown claims that Watson helped to secure the contract for AIS and that he is directly connected to the company. They say he created the bank accounts for the firm and told the principals what to say and do, which they claim is supported by email communication.

The new mountain of information, it was revealed, came into the possession of the RCIPS from Admiral Administration, where Watson worked with his PA and now co-defendant, Rodrigues. After he was charged, he resigned and then Rodrigues’ contract was terminated.

Leading UK attorney, Trevor Burke QC, who is representing Watson, argued vehemently against the trial delay.

He pointed out that because the defendants were now unemployed as a result of the charges and because Watson’s assets were the subject of a restraint order, he would not have the money to last him until November. Burke urged the court not to cancel the May trial, saying that despite the appearance of the new material, there was still fifty days to go. If the crown was to disclose everything then both defence and prosecutors could examine the information simultaneously, he suggested.

With a concerted effort by the legal teams and a commitment to agree admissions and focus directly on what the crown planned to present to support its case against Watson, everyone could easily be ready for the scheduled trial in May, Burke insisted.

However, Moran argued that the police had to pursue further investigations and that the material impacted third parties. He said there was also a question of some information seized or received by the police in the course of the investigation that could fall under legal professional privilege.

The prosecutor said that Watson’s own defence team had already caused a halt in the investigation by claiming that some of the information the police seized was protected by legal privilege, which had slowed down the progress.

He claimed it was a very complex and technical case that had numerous lines of enquiry. Moran argued that in the interests of justice the police needed the time to thoroughly review the new material before it was in a position to present the case to the court, or indeed find material that could even clear Watson.

Burke countered that that the case was not in the least bit complicated and that it was a relatively simple and straightforward allegation of corruption regarding a contract, which his client has denied.

However, the judge, hearing the crown’s arguments to push back the trial by six months, agreed to the application.

Justice Ingrid Mangatal said it was difficult to see where the balance lies because the defendants must receive a fair trial in a reasonable time period but they would be in an adverse position until that trial. But, as the crown prosecutor had noted, she said that this is the same for anyone accused of a crime and for some it was far worse as they were remanded.

Looking at all the circumstances, including the nature of the material and the issues raised, the judge said it would be just for a trial date to be vacated for the crown to carry out its obligations and provide disclosure. Justice Mangatal said the authorities had a duty to the public to put all the relevant material before the court but urged the parties to seek an earlier trial date than November.