The final report from the investigative team appointed by the Attorney General appointed to inquire into the circumstances surrounding a missing file in a malicious prosecution lawsuit brought by nine men acquitted of the murder of Vindra Naipaul-Coolman has found no disciplinary offence or criminal or fraudulent act was committed by any office or officer in the judicial and legal service.

The report, compiled by former High Court Judge Stanley John and retired Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) Pamela Schullera-Hinds, said it was mandated to investigate the disappearance of the file in the case CV 2020- 01243 Shervon Peters and Others vs The Attorney General of TT and establish whether there was any dereliction of duty, conflict of interest or breach of trust of any member of the Civil Law department.

The team said, 'Our investigation has not found any facts, circumstances or evidence, which in our opinion, may give rise to, show or establish the commission of any disciplinary offence by any office/officer in the judicial and legal service relating to the management and conduct of CV2020-01243.

It also said its investigation had not found any facts, circumstances or evidence which 'in our opinion may give rise to, show or establish the commission of any criminal or fraudulent act contrary to the laws of TT relating to the management and conduct of CV2020-01243.'

The team said the claim was filed electronically at the High Court Registry on May 29, 2020. It said its investigations revealed that no request was ever made by the office of the SG at any time for copies of the documents filed during the period that the matter was ongoing. It said the then SG had asked for these documents, copies would have been sent immediately.

'This, in our opinion, demonstrates that all the necessary steps were not taken by the then Solicitor General (SG) to obtain a duplicate file on realising that the file was missing. Had that been done and the SG's department had actively participated in the claim for malicious prosecution, there is every likelihood that the outcome of the matter would have been significantly different and may not have reached the stage of assessment of damages. This demonstrates the lack of initiative within the civil law department and reinforces the need for urgent reform.'

The team said, contrary to the provisions of Section 20 of the State Liability and Proceedings Act Chap 8:02, the Claimants' notice of application for default judgement and an affidavit filed May 9, 2020, were received by a court clerk attached to the Chief State Solicitor's (CSS) court schedule department and served on November 12, 2020. It said while these documents were wrongly served and accepted, no steps were taken to forward them immediately to the office of the SG until February 11, 2021, three months later.

In the interim report, attached as an appendix, the team tracked the progress of the misplaced physical file. It said the claim was issued on May 29, 2020 and served on a clerk at the SG's office on June 20