The high-profile trial involving veteran attorney at law David S Brandt appears to have hit another snag.

The high-profile trial involving veteran attorney at law David S Brandt appears to have hit another snag.

The trial date, which was scheduled for November 16th, has now being vacated and December 11th has been set aside as the new date for an update on whether or not the trial, dating back to 2016, will start.

ZJB News understands that Mr. Brandt won an appeal following an application he filed with the court when an earlier ruling denied his efforts to cross examine virtual complainants. The court upheld Mr. Brandt’s application.

 ZJB News further learnt that both the prosecution and the defendant have filed applications to the UK-based Privy Council where constitutional and evidentiary matters are concerned.

The Court of Appeal on 11th November dismissed an appeal brought by the Director of Public Prosecutions and an appeal brought by the Attorney General in which they sought to have set aside a ruling by the His Lordship the Honourable Rajiv Persad that Mr. David Brandt, consistent with his constitutional right, be permitted to cross examine all witnesses at his upcoming trial, notwithstanding a provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to the effect that a defendant may be prohibited from cross examining certain witnesses in certain cases.  

The Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions had brought civil appeals against the ruling of the trial judge in the criminal proceedings. Mr. David Brandt, represented by Dr. David Dorsett, applied to the Court of Appeal for the appeals to be struck out on the ground that it is not permissible under the Supreme Court Act to bring a civil appeal against any order from a criminal cause or matter.   

At the hearing of the appeal, counsel for the Director of Public Prosecutions, Ms. Anesta Weekes QC, requested additional time for her and counsel for the Attorney General, Ms. Renee Morgan, to conduct additional research and to provide additional submissions on the point raised by counsel for Mr. Brandt.  

The Court of Appeal granted the request made on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions whilst also granting Dr. Dorsett additional time to respond.  

The Court of Appeal indicated that upon receiving the additional submissions it would rule on the papers. On 11th November 2020 the Court of Appeal headed by Chief Justice Dame Janice Pereira, together with Justice of Appeal Louise Blenman and Justice of Appeal Paul Webster all unanimously agreed to dismiss the appeals brought by the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney General. 

Both the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions have now filed applications with the Privy Council seeking an order that the Privy Council grant them special permission to appeal against the Court of Appeal order.   

On 13th November 2020 High Court Judge Justice Richard Floyd postponed the commencement of the Brandt trial upon the application of both the prosecution and counsel for Mr. Brandt.  

Justice Floyd has ordered that the parties return to court on 11th December 2020 so as to inform the court as to the progress of the Privy Council proceedings. Mr. Brandt has filed an appeal with the Privy Council on the question of the constitutionality of the police extracting data from his cell phone without a court warrant. Mr. Brandt has asked the Privy Council to expedite its hearing of his appeal.

Mr. Brandt has been charged with sexual exploitation of a minor.