Forfeiture becomes focus in explosives case
(CNS): The degradation or forfeiture of the shipment of blasting materials seized by officials could turn out to be a far greater punishment for the firm’s owner than any the court might impose, regardless of whether or not he is found guilty, and have implications for the local economy, the court heard Friday. Blasting caps and various explosive chemicals allegedly imported without the correct paperwork by Prasad Suresh is worth more than half a million dollars and its condition is deteriorating fast. Defence attorney Nicholas Dixey pointed out that even if his client, who he said was innocent, was found guilty, he faced a maximum fine of only $1000.
However, if the shipment was allowed to go to waste or confiscated by the authorities, the financial punishment could have serious consequences, not just for his client and the company Midland Acres Ltd but for the local economy as well, he said.
The loss of the shipment, which Dixey is still arguing is not necessarily explosives as defined under the law, could have a much wider impact than the question of his client’s guilt. The lawyer argued in Summary Court Friday that his client was only in the position he now found himself in because he was part of a much "bigger picture".
Dixey stated that the paperwork oversight on cargo designed for legitimate commercial use would have serious implications, not just for his client but for the road project that the fill was designed for and the workers at the firm.
The lawyer asked the court to intervene on the issue of the cargo, claiming that as each day passed the quality of the material imported was in jeopardy. He also pointed to the issue of the disproportionality in the financial punishment for a paperwork oversight if his client were to lose his cargo, compared to the fine laid out in the regulations.
Prosecuting counsel Candida James argued on behalf of the crown that the shipment did not necessarily have to go to waste even if it was forfeited, pointing out that it could still be used by the NRA for the benefit of the community.
With the explosive nature of the shipment still in question, James also noted that the preliminary reports from the crown’s expert indicated that at least one of the chemicals examine was defined as explosive under the law and that the issue would be part of a trial argument.
The magistrate, who was specifically sitting on Friday to hear the increasingly complex case, noted that he would have to see some legal precedent about whether the local Summary Court did, in fact, have jurisdiction to make any kind of ruling in relation to the forfeiture of the shipment.
The case was adjourned until Wednesday in order to allow both sides to discuss the way forward on the future of the blasting materials.
See related story:
Category: Crime
