Any suggestion that the legal team representing businessman Dominic Hadeed, his wife, Genevieve, and her aunt Star Sabga was responsible for the leaked audio recording that is now the subject of a police investigation has been rejected by attorney Faris Al-Rawi, SC.He emphasised yesterday that attorneys defending the Hadeeds and Sabga have never been provi­ded with the full recording by the State.Speaking with reporters at his Altus Court office, Port of Spain, Al-Rawi said the defence had repeatedly requested disclosure of the material relied upon by the State but had received only 13 short audio clips attached to an affidavit filed by Minister of Homeland Security Roger Alexander.“We couldn’t possibly have been the source of any leak because we’ve been asking for this all along,” Al-Rawi said. “We have not received any disclosure. The only disclosure that we have received are the particulars and the 13 audio clips embedded in the affidavit.”He said the defence filed an application for disclosure last Friday, immediately after the minister’s affidavit was served, because the legal team wanted to know precisely what its clients were alleged to have said.That application, he noted, remained before the court.According to Al-Rawi, the 13 clips supplied by the State were “very tightly clipped”, beginning and ending abruptly, and together amounted to just over two minutes of audio.He contrasted that with the recording that subsequently entered the public domain, which he estimated lasted about 15 minutes.While denying any involvement in the leak, Al-Rawi acknowledged that the excerpts disclosed by the State appeared within the longer recording that was later published.“It is simply to say, because it’s in the public domain, that the recording has the very statements selected by the Honourable Minister contained in that recording,” he said.“What’s interesting is that the context in which those statements were made is not put forward.”He added that the defence had analysed the leaked recording and filed affidavits addressing the issue, but said those matters would be dealt with before the court rather than litigated publicly.Al-Rawi also questioned what he described as apparent differences between the material disclosed by the State and the particulars contained in the minister’s affidavit, saying those issues would have to be addressed during the proceedings.“We have made a request for disclosure because what our clients would like to do is face the allegations against them frontally and give their explanation in relation to the matters,” he said.Asked whether the defence had access to the complete recording, Al-Rawi said it had not received the full package of material allegedly relied upon by investigators.“The minister has disclosed 13 discrete audio clips,” he said. “If you add them together, they amount to just over two minutes. What is in the public domain is approximately 15 minutes.”He stressed that the defence was relying on the court process to obtain disclosure and said it would not speculate about how the recording came to be released publicly.“It would be irresponsible of me to speculate,” Al-Rawi said. “Courts deal with facts. The minister will speak for himself in due course as to his intelligence and the disclosures that may be required in court.”Police probeAl-Rawi also welcomed the Tri­nidad and Tobago Police Service’s investigation into the unauthorised disclosure of the recording, saying the defence would cooperate if approached by investi­gators.“I welcome it,” Al-Rawi said. “There are many competent, responsible people in our security ser­vices.”He said the defence had no difficulty with lawful intelligence gathering carried out under the law and distinguished the issue of interception from the separate issue of disclosure in the court proceedings.“I take no difficulty with law enforcement doing what it ought to do,” he said. “Our concern is the disclosure or non-disclosure of the material that our clients are alleged to have said.”Al-Rawi said the legal team intended to continue pursuing disclosure through the courts while allowing the police investigation to take its course.He maintained that the defence’s focus remained on ensuring its clients had a fair opportunity to answer the allegations against them.“Our clients are not in a war with the Government,” he said. “They simply want to defend their good names, and they want to do that through the courts.”He added that if investigators sought the defence’s assistance du­ring the police probe into the leak, the legal team was prepared to cooperate, while continuing to challenge the disclosure issues through the judicial process.