Premier ‘sorry’ for contempt gaff in Syed case
Premier Alden McLaughlin in the CrossTalk studio
(CNS): Premier Alden McLaughlin made a public apology through his lawyer to the court Thursday afternoon during a special contempt hearing because of prejudicial comments he made on the radio about the Hassan Syed case that caused a costly and extensive delay in the middle of the trial. The apology was not made in person, nor was McLaughlin present when Neil Timms QC represented him and told the judge that his client “apologised unreservedly” and that the comments were “ill judged”, but because “he had become the story” in the middle of a “virulent election campaign”, he had felt that he had to defend himself.
A gag order imposed on the press about this issue was lifted by the judge shortly after the jury had found Syed guilty on all counts relating to the theft of more than $500,000 from UCCI when he was the college president between 2006 and 2008.
At the hearing called by the trial judge, lawyers representing the premier, Woody Da Costa, who is the host of the radio talk-show, Crosstalk, where the comments were made, and the station, Rooster 101, which broadcasts the show, apologised to the court for the potentially prejudicial comments that could have led to a mistrial. Da Costa and Randy Merren, the owner of Hurley’s Media, which owns the station, were both in court but the premier was across the road in the Legislative Assembly and missed the public courtroom scolding.
Justice Phillip St John-Stevens explained that the contempt hearing was to discuss the comments and their impact, as they had almost derailed the entire case. The criticisms of Syed and comments contradicting the evidence he had given to the court by the premier of the country on radio were described as exceptional by Syed’s defence team. But they had also caused significant concern for the judge, as the court spent three days ironing out the consequences of what McLaughlin had said on Rooster.
The comments were made on 18 February when McLaughlin appeared on the airwaves as a guest on the morning talk-show a few days after CNS had first reported on evidence given by the senior investigating officer in the Syed case under oath. The police officer had told the court that although he and his team had tried to get McLaughlin, who was education minister at the time, to complete a written pro forma statement to help in their investigation, he had refused.
When the subject was raised by Da Costa, even though the trial was in progress, the premier, who is a qualified lawyer and aware of the contempt laws, spoke about what the police officer said in evidence and denied that he had failed to respond. He said the police had visited his house for several hours, asking about the case, and he had told them he could not help or assist in any way because he was not involved in any operational elements of the college.
This not only directly contradicted a police officer who spoke under oath but also the claims made by Syed. He gave evidence that McLaughlin was closely involved in college operations and that they had frequently dined together, sometimes with the chairman of the board, Connor O’Dea, and spent time discussing projects at the college. McLaughlin denied this on Crosstalk and said he firmly believed that Syed was “a scamp”.
All of this led to an application by the defence that day to stop the trial and dismiss the jury.
A gag order was put in place immediately to prevent any further reporting or discussion of McLaughlin’s comments and the court then embarked on what the judge described Thursday as an “extensive and expensive investigation” into what was said, what impact it could have and exactly what the jury may have heard.
During several days of legal arguments, Syed’s defence attorney, Tom Price QC, pointed out that, as an experienced attorney, the premier should have known better. He said it was “breathtaking and unbelievable” that McLaughlin would say such things in the middle of a trial.
“This is not a report in the tabloid press but this is the premier of a country going out of his way to make tailored comments. It is staggering and I have never seen anything like it in all my thirty years of practicing,” Price said.
The crown accepted there was serious potential for prejudice and that it was “an unusual turn of events”. However, Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Patrick Moran believed the trial could still be saved by questioning the jury to establish what they knew.
After several days of discussions and concerns about how that could be done without causing further prejudice, the jurors were eventually asked to complete a questionnaire about the matter and it emerged that none of the seven jurors had listened to the show and they were not aware of the premier’s comments.
The judge had stressed the importance of trusting a jury and, as he had continued to give them directions about not listening to anything outside the court about the case, a mistrial was avoided when it was clear they had no direct knowledge of the prejudicial comments or who made them.
At Thursday’s hearing, the judge made it clear that the comments had caused significant problems and that the issue could have been considered contempt, which carries a fine and even possible jail term.
Following the apologies from the lawyers on behalf of all involved and the insistence that there was no intention to cause harm, Justice St John-Stevens pointed out that the lack of intent was not the issue; it was the impact that was important.
Rebuking the parties involved for what could have caused even more problems than the costly delay, the apologies from all concerned appeared to suffice. After issuing a warning about the importance of protecting a person’s right to a fair trial, he adjourned the special hearing without handing down any penalties to either the premier, the host of the show or the station owner.
The matter may not be over however, as the defence team in the Syed case confirmed they were already considering an appeal and it is likely that this issue may play a part in the grounds that Syed’s legal team will form in their efforts to overturn his conviction.
Check the CNS Election Section later for more on McLaughlin’s comments and his belief that politics and the elections played a part in the issues surrounding what the police said was McLaughlin’s failure to answer their questions on the record.
BIg Talk by Bo Weevil about he has the votes to pass this law when he very well knew that 3 members of his government had defected on this matter. Alden try hush and stop trying to wiggle your way out of this matter. I see the Compass propoganda machine is beating a dead horse instead of focussing on the criminal conduct of our so called leaders in government. But we know who’s big agenda they fully back in this matter, now before the house. And which Legg they are standing up on.
The Premier has shown his undoubted brilliance.
An overachiever no doubt ….. LOL
I never thought I would borrow a political phrase from spiteful libtards, but in this case, I will. “Not my Premier!”
Bite your ‘libtard’ label buttflake.
I think that the premier should read all these comments , and the unpublished one’s to really get a feel for what people really think of him and his actions .
Clearly Alden “manned up” before the court and had his lawyer apologize for him.
Clearly Alden had no choice but to “man up” — otherwise he might have had to face a contempt of court charge — not sure but contempt might actually carry a jail term — but it is quite a serious charge.
Sure does. Public commentary on a trial in a manner to impugn the testimony in the trial is an offence punishable by up to 4 years in jail. That’s pretty unlikely, but if this had resulted in a mistrial liability for the costs of that would be a very serious consideration.
By the time that the appeal takes place and Syed is released the election will have concluded so the Premier won’t be punished for messing up his conviction by his irresponsible and ignorant actions.
So how is this different from when MacKeeva and his possee marched into court to intimidate the jury when one of his main crew was on trial for jumping someone that jumped his wife?
If he’s sorry , I am dead , I know that hasn’t happened yet, he didn’t say it his Attorney said it . I think that was the least his Attorney could have said on his behalf.
Alden’s actions was probably not a mistake. Remember that as Minister of Education in the last PPM Government Alden hired Hassan Syed and was his principal “handler”. Syed was the cat’s meow to Alden and his Government cohorts.
Please realize that this scenario gives Syed the ideal chance for appeal, which is what Alden wants. “We really don’t want him convicted because he was our boy. We delayed getting him back to Cayman but couldn’t avoid him being tried. So the next best thing to get him off is to sabotage his trial in a subtle manner and allow him an appeal”: Those could be Alden’s words.
Doubt that scenario very much, 4:52 pm — a little too contrived. Alden just screwed up, and should have known better.
And had there been a mistrial, that would not have meant that Syed would have gotten off — he would have been retried.
But I am happy that the judge was able to sort this out as we dont need the expense of another lengthy trial.
Syed would have been better off if he had pled guilty and thrown himself on the mercy of the court.
All has happened is that we have learnt the full extent of his nefarious, despicable behavior.
4:52 pm: you conspiracy theory obviously does not take account for human nature — nothing to make your friends desert you like trouble.
When Sam Basdeo was retired as President of UCCI, and I’m sure the timing of that was pure coincidence, McLaughlin thought Syed was the cat’s pyjamas and the perfect choice for the UCCI job.
The evidence for that is on the governments own website. But check it soon before it’s accidentally deleted during a routine maintenance operation.
http://www.gov.ky/portal/page/portal/cighome/pressroom/archive/200608/uccisnewpresident
Here’s a little taster ….
‘The Education Minister, Hon. Alden McLaughlin, expressed his delight at Dr. Syed’s appointment by saying that, “This heralds the beginning of an exciting new chapter in UCCI’s history. … “.
He added, “We are delighted to have an education professional of Dr. Syed’s caliber (sic) at the helm of this Caymanian institution, especially one who is so accomplished in the local community. The Ministry looks forward to a long and productive partnership with Dr. Syed and the University College”.’
You lucky, lucky people to have such talent in your midst.
Love from Baldric (still live and kicking).
“Especially one so accomplished in the local community”?? Eh?
The man had just arrived! No one knew anything about him and vice versa.
Where did that come from?
Baldric, you raise some interesting points, but can no one retire around here without being accused of being pushed out? There comes a time when everyone has to take that step. Happens to the best of us.
From my knowledge, Baldric, which may admittedly be imperfect, I think that the positioning of Syed as a potential candidate was in place as part of the planned retirement of president at the time, Basedo. In fact, to my knowledge many at UCCI at the time were solidly behind the selection of Syed — and that that included then president Basedo. (Syed’s ability to manipulate and influence are highly developed!!)
So I don’t think that Basdeo “was retired” to make way for Syed.
And that same manipulation was applied to the then Minister of Education — and even Governor Jack!!! Everyone fell victim to his wiles — from the lowly student to the most exalted. He had them all eating out of the palm of his hands.
4:52 pm, I doubt very much that the defense could succeed in making the Premier’s comments grounds for appeal. They might try, but I don’t think they can succeed.
Check out the following para from the above report:
“After several days of discussions and concerns about how *that could be done without causing further prejudice, the jurors were eventually asked to complete a questionnaire about the matter and it emerged that none of the seven jurors had listened to the show and they were not aware of the premier’s comments.”
If the jurors were unaware of the comments, then the Premier’s comments cannot be grounds for appeal.
That having been said, I would not like to be wearing the Premier’s shoes now. This was some gaffe of monumental proportions.
[*”that” refers to ascertaining how to determine whether the jurors’ knew about the Premier’s comments.]
If he pays it back will he get off?? That’s what the Pines lady did!
NO, 4:20 pm, the “Pines lady” as you put it, did not go to trial. He should be requited to pay back funds as part of his sentencing, but I am not sure he has anything to pay back with.
Well, if his little lady cuts loose her share of the take, maybe some mitigation.
Little do you know of Alden it appears or you’re just a PPM supporting throwing that in the mix. Alden is no paragon of integrity I can assure you!
Don’t get your logic. He wasn’t on trial like “McWeevil.
Mr. Alden must prove his legal qualifications. A qualified lawyer would never have made such a school boy error.
Do we know who is responsible for paying for the extensive costs resulting from his error?
What costs resulting from his error — unless I am missing something, the trial was delayed two days — and I can’t imagine that creating “extensive costs.”
If a mistrial had been declared, that would have created the huge cost of trying the case all over again.
But you are right about McLaughlin’s gaffe — good Lord — he knows these things and is used to the hot seat. Just don’t get it.
erm, would put an additional two days at a minium of $20,000. Judge, four lawyers, court staff etc maybe closer to $30,000
The judge himself spoke of the extensive costs – those are his words! You don’t think lawyers cost money or what? 2 additional days for a QC is not cheap. Is Syed on legal aid? If he is then we the people will be at a loss for that money plus the time costs from the DPPs side as well.
so the premier is being held accountable for a thief? true- he shouldn’t have said what he did on air, no question about that, but this was an attack on his credibility on air and it would have been very difficult to remain quiet and allow all of the speculation to go on around him. If anything, this shows that Alden is human, just like the rest of us.
Let’s remember that it was not the Premier on trial here – not like another Premier of recent past.
He’s a lawyer. Keep your mouth SHUT until after the trial. The audacity of this man who time and time again demonstrates that he believes he’s a GOD! Costly delay … and now possible appeal grounds! Alden should be made to PAY for all of this.
He would not even show up in court to apologize. He’s a real piece of work and shouldn’t be premier! No better than the other side he’s always criticizing and in fact may be worse since he’s supposedly the educated one.
Essentially he called both the police officer and Syed liars. Well the latter may be about some things but I have no doubts he was close to Alden as he claims. I often saw them out together dining etc. Bosom buddies! Nonetheless give the police the statement. They will determine it’s use if need be with the DPP.
He’s not human – in his mind he’s above the rules! A real GOD COMPLEX!
12:09pm , Mr Alden is Attorney he knew that what he was doing , was the wrong time to had did it . Me that is not Attorney knows that it was the wrong time for him to had did what he did . If he was smart he would have waited till after the verdict.
“Let’s remember that it was not the Premier on trial here”. Exactly. Yet he felt justified in deliberately jeopardizing the right to a fair trial of the man who was on trial.
It is sad that the interviewers at Rooster didn’t know the basic journalistic protocols when it comes to commenting on a trial in progress — but it is shocking that the Premier allowed himself to be drawn into a discussion on the air a way that endangered a trial. He knows better.
Kudos to the judge to make the right decision in continuing the trial.
There is enough egg to go around here, but surely the Premier’s face is still dripping.
Our “Talk Show hosts” are not journalists. Period
Well, they better learn the journalistic rules fast, ot this will be only the beginning of trouble for them and Hurkey’s Media.
Whether they are journalists or not, the rules also apply to them.
Attacked his credibility, eh? All the police officer did was respond truthfully to questions posed to him UNDER OATH. No, Alden did NOT cooperate with the investigation, he did NOT supply a statement. What else is the police officer supposed to say when that is the truth? If Alden really did want to address what he saw as an attack on his credibility, then HE can get up on the stand and, UNDER OATH, respond to what he did or didn’t do.
But Alden doesn’t do that. Oh no. He decides to go on Rooster radio, that platform of unaccountable blather, baseless opinion, and transparent pandering, and there he decides to say his peace. Interesting choice of venue, that, if you really want to defend yourself and your “credibility”, while the empty-headed hosts just cluck and nod their heads.
He should have been fined the FULL COSTS, in the tens of thousands of dollars, that was the true expense of the delays in the trial, and Randy Merren too. The whole episode was such an embarrassment.
I believe that his action gives Syed Attorney all grounds to push for an appeal .
The Premier being a Lawyer himself should be made to stand all Courts. cost in the appeal . I think that the people of Cayman Islands should protest and demand that he pays all Court cost out of his pockets . Disgraceful is too nice of a word to use for this kind of action .
If this was a just a “regular” local with no connections to the upper echelons of the Cayman society, they would have been crucified! This is so shameful, and he is supposed to be a lawyer?
So, when you say regular local, do you mean local local (as opposed to the imaginary indigenous local, you know, those of myth along with dragons), or the notorious paper local, split into subcategories of Jaycan, Hondurcans, Eurocans, PR holders or the potentially Human rights denied applied PRcans or just the plain old WP holder? So confusing. Anyway, its all irrelevant as no “regular” person would actually be asked.
You surely sound hound-dog home-sick Bobo.
Your definitions 5.07, not mine.
Knowing how much Syed stole from the Taxpayers , and how much the Court case costed the Taxpayers again. And he of all people that should know better to do such a thing without having a gun held to his head .
I think that this act is good grounds for appeals and he should have to pay for Courts cost forward from here on .
We are seeing it more and more in Cayman how the law only applies and enforced against a few. It is up to us Cayman to remove this PPM menace from office. They are simply no longer acting in the best interest of the average Caymanian. That is abundantly clear to all now!
His refusal to assist is a matter of record. It shows he is unsuitable for public office.
Seems to me that “His refusal to assist” up for dispute.
Anyone can refuse to answer police questions, it does not make u criminal.
At least he wasnt stealing or gambling my money!
That’s true, although refusing to supply a written statement doesn’t exactly demonstrate a commitment to upholding law and order either. Of course, commenting on ongoing legal proceedings in a way that prejudices them or undermines the authority of the Court IS a criminal offence.
Penal Code (2013 Revision)
111. (1) A person who –
…
(d) while a judicial proceeding is pending, makes use of any speech or writing misrepresenting such proceeding or capable of prejudicing any person in favour of or against any parties to such proceeding, or calculated to lower the authority of any person before whom such proceeding is being had or taken;
…
commits an offence and is liable to imprisonment for four years.
Refuse to help police with an investigation into the theft of public funds when he was the minister? You’re ok with that?? WOW … that surely says a lot about your character and what you are willing to accept.
For the record McKeeva was never found guilty of using public funds for gambling. He like others used his CC for personal travel and to pay for the hotel at the facility where he gambled. HOWEVER, unlike Syed he actually paid his personal CC bills back. What about the other MLA’s who used their for personal purchases because there was not policy against it? Why are you not mentioning those persons?
Bias much?
Is is “sinjun” or “Saint John”?
Sin-jun – posh English
Did he used to play beach volleyball?
So that footy bloke on on TV was Ian Sin-Jun? Damn. I had that wrong.
Perhaps he wasn’t posh enough?
This just goes to prove that we have an idiot as Premier and no one should vote to put him back in politics.
Agreed.
Also agreed! We need to put as Premier wise men like, er, McKeeva, Bernie, Eugene,, Ezzard, Arden, Anthony, Julianna, Tara or………….Jeesum peters, what a mess we in.
And the ones who have declared already for the next election are no better than the (mainly but not all) poorly educated limited thinkers of the present and past who can’t hold down proper jobs in government or the private sector.
If the salary for MLA was, say, $40k a year, you would hardly see any of these failures trying to get elected. They would rather sit home, complain about being a Caymanian and unable to get the sort of work Caymanians must have, i.e. top managerial, and get social service money.
Sounds like he was a witness in respect to what the police officer and defendant testified about. Since when are witnesses required to keep their mouths shut without a prior gag order? Either side could have subpoenaed him. This is just a lawyer kerfuffle.
In a criminal proceeding underway? Are you kidding? And not just a rookie but a qualified lawyer. Damn lucky the mistrial application didn’t stick – only because the jury doesn’t listen to Rooster!
Does anyone with any sense at all listen to Rooster?
Anything to make British criminal law slow, expensive and ineffective.
We cannot stand by idly as the premier overtly shows us he is above the law. This is ridiculous.
I’d consider this your political suicide, Alden.
The pompous Aladdin strikes again.
Unbelievable. I remember when H. Syed was president of the university that Premier McLaughlin was singing his praises to the Heavens – lots of pictures of both of them too… Now he claims that H. Syed was a “scamp”. Really???
Agree, it’s sad because they seem to be using Syed as a “scape-goat” for something much bigger. If he wasn’t qualified how could he have got the job in the first place. This whole thing stinks to the high-heavens.
If you think Syed is a “scapegoat”, you obviously paid no attention to the court reports.
Did you also miss the part that said he did not have a PhD as he claimed he had?
When he was first employed by UCCI it was on the basis that he had a master’s degree.
He subsequently claimed he had since acquired a PhD — but no one has ever claimed to have seen that documentation or otherwise verified that.
If after a long, tedious trial that verification has never come out, I think we can safely say it does not exist.
If there is a man or woman amongst us that has not been taken in by a criminal or bully or conman I would be very surprised. I have had the misfortune to meet many and on the surface they are very plausible…so lets not judge him on that, most of us have been there and got the T shirt
You are absolutely right. Con-men and con-women have to be smooth operators and likeable – or they wouldn’t be successful at what they do.
WOW … proves what I’ve always known – Alden is an idiot! VOTE HIM OUT!!!
Puleezee!!! Gimme a break!
Isn’t he a lawyer ? He knew better! Maybe it was intentional ?
unbelievable he did know better in this circumstances. This is the government pushing the legal practioner bill too. maybe they do not know better?
Sorry??? He blatantly refused to answer or speak to the police in a ongoing criminal case!!! Is this how the Premier sets the example?
This is wrong on so many levels, it’s not even funny. David Legge was certainly right about this place.
yes he was.
Hah, yeah well he should know when he is neck deep in it.