The Court of Appeal has begun hearing appeals filed by Financial Investigations Unit (FIU) director Nigel Stoddard and the Attorney General against a High Court ruling that found the FIU acted unconstitutionally in an attempt to access private banking information of former police commissioner Gary Griffith and his wife Nicole Dyer-Griffith.

The appeal also challenges a similar ruling in favour of Dwight Andrews, managing director of The Security Zone and a former adviser with the National Security Ministry, with the two matters now consolidated.

Justices of Appeal Mark Mohammed, Maria Wilson and Geoffrey Henderson reserved their ruling on February 3.

In September 2023, Justice Devindra Rampersad ruled that the FIU’s request to financial institutions for extensive banking details – covering six years, from 2016-2022 – was unlawful and constituted an abuse of power.

He quashed the request and imposed an injunction preventing the FIU from accessing the information from several financial institutions in the form of account details, account balances, account information, customer due-diligence information and wire-transfer details.

Justice Rampersad found the FIU had no legal justification for its actions, as its request was not based on a Suspicious Transaction Report (STR) or Suspicious Activity Report (SAR), which are required triggers under the FIU Act.

“The FIU was not fashioned under the investigative model and therefore it was not intended to have the power to commence any investigation without a trigger,” the judge said.

He held that once an investigation is initiated by an STR or SAR, the FIU may request financial information. However, in this case, the FIU acted independently, launching what the judge described as a “self-initiated investigation.”

The judge noted the broad scope of the FIU’s request and without a legal trigger, found this was arbitrary and an overreach of the agency’s authority.

He also ruled that without a “trigger,” an exercise of power under section 8(3)(a) would be arbitrary and a potential abuse, which could not be reasonably justified by a court.

However, Peter Knox, KC, who leads the FIU’s legal team, said Rampersad’s finding on section 8(3)(a) was “just wrong.”

He said the section confirmed the FIU director’s power to initiate a request on its account, with the only precondition being that it must be for the purpose for which the legislation was intended.

Knox also pointed to the oath of secrecy imposed on the FIU and its director, noting no court order had been made for the latter to provide information to the court.

“He should not have come to the finding he did.”

According to Knox, the judge’s public-interest considerations were wrong.

“He set out the correct test, but came to the wrong conclusion. He does not ask himself what public interest the Parliament was seeking to protect…He just says no one should be subject to an investigation without a SAR/STR. But this is wrong.

“It is not even an investigation but a gathering of information,” he said, g