00:00The nine men found not guilty of murdering businesswoman Vindra Naipaul-Kulman will receive their payment from the state.
00:08This as the appeal court reinstated the $20 million payment.
00:12It was not, however, a unanimous decision as the panel of justices Nolan Burrow, Mark Mohamed and Rani Budusing had different positions.
00:22Nolan Burrow and Mark Mohamed allowed the appeal while Justice Rani Budusing dissented.
00:27It was a majority-to-one decision.
00:30The appeal court previously reserved its ruling in a legal challenge mounted by the nine men who were charged but eventually found not guilty of the 2007 murder of the owner and CEO of Extra Food Supermarket.
00:45The former accused are Shervin Peters and Devin Peters along with their brother Anthony Gloucester, Joel Fraser, Ronald Armstrong together with Kida and Jameel Garcia, Marlon Trimmingham and Antonio Charles.
00:59Each of the men will now receive $2.1 million for Melissa's prosecution and for the 10 years they were imprisoned before being freed in 2016.
01:08The appeal concerned the decision of Justice Joanne Charles to set aside an award totaling close to $20 million that Master Marta Alexander directed they receive in January of 2024.
01:23During the proceedings, their attorney, Senior Counsel Anandrum Logan, submitted that Justice Charles erred when she found that the legal claim was not properly served on the state as was contended by the Office of the Attorney General.
01:36The court holds that there are six ways to serve.
01:39One, by delivery to the Solicitor General, by delivery to an officer in the Solicitor General's department designated by a publication in the Gazette.
01:49Three, by leaving the papers at the Office of the Solicitor General.
01:53Four, by leaving the papers at the Office of the Designated Officer.
01:57Five, by registered mail to the Solicitor General.
02:00Or six, by registered mail to the Designated Officer.
02:04Senior Counsel Ramlogan said the claim was delivered directly to attorney Natoya Moore, who indicated she was authorized to accept the document,
02:12even though neither her authorization nor the authorization of any other attorney at the department was published in the Gazette.
02:21Ramlogan contended if Moore was not authorized to accept, the state ought to have indicated that, but never did so.
02:26He said if there was no authorized officer to accept such document, then all civil claims currently before the court and even those that have been disposed of were compromised.
02:37The appeal court, however, found there is nothing in the law to prohibit Moore from accepting service,
02:42and by leaving the documents at the Office of the Solicitor General cannot be so strictly interpreted.
02:49And where the Solicitor General is not available to accept personal service,
02:54or where the designated officer is either not appointed or even if appointed is not available,
03:00the documents can be left at the Office of the Solicitor General.
03:03I wish you to worry, Rupnerine, TV6 News.
Comments