Full Text | DPP defends leadership, hits back against ‘bitter’ senior deputy

Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Paula Llewellyn K.C. has defended her stewardship and rubbished criticisms levelled against her.

Llewellyn, in a statement today, also hit back against Senior Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Kathy Ann Pyke who has bashed her leadership and management of the office. 

In a letter to Prime Minister Andrew Holness and Justice Minister Delroy Chuck, Pyke spoke out against a move by the Government to increase the retirement age of the DPP and auditor general from 60 to 65 years, charging that the rationale given is “flawed”.

Further, Pyke asked that the prime minister commissions an investigation into the viability of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, claiming that Llewellyn's leadership is wanting.

But, the DPP dismissed Pyke's criticism and described her as unprofessional, eccentric and bitter.

“Miss Pyke has always been bitterly resentful, extremely upset, and expressed feelings of hurt and disrespect to me and other members of staff because she has not been placed to head a unit.”

“It is indeed unfortunate, and it pains me to say this, although she has a brilliant mind in respect of research and vast experience, as a prosecutor, her interpersonal skills, notwithstanding our best efforts to put her in a space to enhance these skills and emotional intelligence in order to facilitate more kindness to her colleagues both internally and externally, that these efforts continue to fail for the most part."

According to the DPP, Pyke's actions have brought the office into disrepute and that an investigation would be launched, which could have consequences as per the staff orders.

Full Letter

1. I refer to the above-captioned matter which came to hand today. I can authenticate the signature of Miss Kathy Pyke as one of the Senior Deputy Director of Public Prosecution. For information, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) is comprised of the staff which involves, me as the Director, 5 Senior Deputy Directors of Public Prosecutions (SDDPP), 5 Deputy Directors of Public Prosecutions (DDPP), 15 Assistant Directors of Public Prosecutions (ADPP), 30 Crown Counsel along with 2 Legal Officers. We are supported by an Administrative staff of 48 persons.

2. I first met Miss Pyke approximately 30 years ago when she came to work at the ODPP as a Crown Counsel, who I mentored and who has worked with me on several seminal cases. From time to time she has left the office to work elsewhere and subsequently applied to return. Under my tenure as DPP for the last 15 years she has been working at the office on contract. It is only within the last 3 years that having answered an advertisement and been successful in the interview, given the vast legal experience she had and she was added to the establishment as a Senior Deputy.

3. When she first came to the office on contract 15 years ago, I had to seek the leave of the Services Commission because due to challenges that had been created by her behaviour, in her previous posting at the Tax Department, I was warned about unprofessional behaviour on her part which had led to her separation from the dept and a referral to the services commission. However, given the fact that as a new DPP, I had inherited 23 lawyers who were demotivated by poor conditions, burned out, and overwhelmed by the high volume of work and poor conditions of work. I had to employ 10 former prosecutors on contract to relieve some of that burden until I could increase the establishment and recruit more lawyers.

4. Miss Pyke who I had always known to be somewhat eccentric has always been in my view a good and experienced prosecutor. Therefore, her services were engaged in the best interest of the office. I trusted my ability as a leader and my emotional intelligence to get the best out of her as a skilled prosecutor while dealing with issues caused by her eccentricities using my soft skills.

5. Alas over the years, though for the most part, she has maintained a good work rate in her prosecutions which has seen her represent the office in the Court of Appeal and the High Court in a professional manner for the most part, nonetheless I have had to deal with the fact that her eccentricities have attracted criticisms from the defence bar the bench and lawyers and the administrative staff within the office at every level over the years.

6. During the course of the 15 years, there was separation and her contract was not renewed by me. Some months later through the entreaties of third parties and her expressed application I acceded to the urgent request to reengage her on contract which I did. Unfortunately, though she continued to work as a prosecutor, it was quite clear to me that, unlike other deputies, all of whom were less experienced than her, I could not find within her behaviour sufficient positives to depart from the caveat issued by the then Chief personnel officer many years ago, not to put her in any supervisory positions office. She has never headed any units in the office over the years.

7. On staff, Miss Pyke is the most senior Crown Counsel next to me, in terms of experience and years at the bar, however on the establishment having only just interviewed 3 years ago she is a junior senior deputy, a fact which she has bitterly resented. There are three 3 senior deputies ahead of her in terms of seniority on the establishment.

8. Though she is very experienced as a prosecutor, her professional decorum and behaviour over the years, has on occasion left a lot to be desired. As a Senior counsel, it is a fact that when junior counsel is assigned to attend court with her, most of them have requested never to be assigned to her again. Both myself, Human Resource Director and the head of my Roster unit have had to stage interventions to smooth the way forward.

9. Miss Pyke has always been bitterly resentful, extremely upset and expressed feelings of hurt and disrespect to me and other members of staff because she has not been placed to head a unit. It is only in the last year that one senior deputy has allowed her to join one of the units that he heads as a member. It is indeed unfortunate, and it pains me to say this although she has a brilliant mind in respect of research and vast experience as a prosecutor her interpersonal skills, notwithstanding our best efforts to put her in a space to enhance these skills and emotional intelligence in order to facilitate more kindness to her colleagues both internally and externally, that these efforts continue to fail for the most part. Still given my nature to be fair and to facilitate the evolution and growth of Crown Counsel I have persevered with her and ignored signs as it has been reported to me of many other instances of disloyalty

10. It is only I and the senior deputies who are successful in not being a target of bullying and intimidation by Miss Pyke. The junior staff have been less fortunate but while some over the years have made written complainants to me and the head of the Roster unit others have complained orally and asked not to be assigned to her, which brings me to the contents of the letter.

Events of July 26, 2023

11. Yesterday morning it came to the attention of my Human Resource Director and myself, that Miss Pyke has been sending and emailing a letter to the younger members of the legal staff seeking their signatures to a letter with the same heading as the letter that has made its way into the public domain.

12. A Crown Counsel who made a complaint to me yesterday to me, made a printed letter from her email to the human resource director and myself which was unsigned.

13. On seeing this letter, the HR invited Miss Pyke to a meeting to confirm or deny the authorship of the letter to which she responded “I will neither confirm nor deny.” The HR Director indicated that the matter will be investigated following reports by a staff member who had indicated her disagreement and anger concerning the contents of the letter which she believed was false concerning the character of the DPP. “It was communicated to Miss Pyke that should it be discovered that the letter was in fact drafted and published by her, then we would proceed as per the directives in the staff orders.” For clarity, the Staff Orders, refer to breaches of sabotage as outlined below.

The Government of Jamaica Staff Order

14. Section 4.2.3 Standard of Behaviour All officers are expected to demonstrate the highest level of professional conduct and personal integrity in the performance of their duties and in serving the public.

The following are some examples of behaviour which are unacceptable:-

a) Excessive noise which disturbs others - colleagues, clients, or customers;

b) Illegal possession and/or use of firearm, weapons or explosives;

c) Fighting or other forms of physical disturbance;

d) Any act of sabotage;

e) Careless abuse or theft of government property;

f) Larceny or theft from others - colleagues, clients, customers;

g) Use of obscene or threatening language;

h) Insubordination (failure to obey a reasonable order from a supervisor).

SABOTAGE

15. The letter dated the 26 of July that was handed over by the member of staff, as coming from Miss Pyke by way of email, under the heading NO CONFIDENCE stated among other things “We the undersigned, are confirmed in our position that we have no confidence in the leadership of Miss Paula Llewellyn as DPP”….

16. This clearly was her trying to force other staff members to sign on to a document that she had created. “…Under the leadership of the current Director, the office has consistently lost some of the most gifted legal minds, in the department due to lack of opportunity, poor leadership, blatant nepotism, and favouritism, toxicity, and lack of effective and sound mentorship as well as inadequate remuneration...”

17. Given the defamatory nature of the above in paragraph 16 which was not true, the July 26, 2023 letter that was being circulated by her to several junior members of staff by email with their invitation to comment and sign, the Human Resource Director addressed her directly in a meeting and indicated, given the clear breach as it relates to organisation efficiency at the ODPP and given complaints registered by Crown Counsel about her conduct it was clear in the HR Directors message that she was obliged to commence an investigation which could have consequences as per the staff orders.

Letter dated July 27, 2023

18. An examination of this letter shows that there was some amendments and retraction and modification of the content. The format remained the same and the functionaries. However, there was a retraction of the defamatory statements that were outlined earlier, which were in clear breach of the staff orders. This July 27 letter was signed only by Miss Pyke.

Another Complainant of Crown Counsel

19. Last night, I received by telephone another detailed complaint from Crown Counsel who was in tears from what she considered bullying by Miss Pyke to sign the letter and who indicated emphatically that she told Miss Pyke in no uncertain terms that she did not agree with the contents of the letter and that she had a good relationship with me and indicated to Miss Pyke that she ought to be ashamed of herself. Both accounts from Crown Counsel expressed fear of retribution from Miss Pyke.

20. This morning I received confirmation from the first complainant Crown Counsel that to her certain knowledge, none of the Crown Counsel that Miss Pyke had requested to sign had signed and that she met a backlash as they refused to sign and that they did not agree with the contents of the letter

21. Later on this morning, my HR Director and I had sight of the letter dated July 27. Firstly, I recognise the office's letterhead, which is an unauthorised use of letterhead. Secondly, all legal staff operate as agents of the DPP under the constitution, who is the holder of the office and therefore any letter to any head of department or to any constituted authorities, like a Minister or Prime Minister can only go through the DPP or with the DPP's expressed permission. Miss Pyke had no such authority, therefore this is a clear breach of protocol, shocking insubordination and abuse of office. Her purported discussions in the letter is a overreach given the remit of the office of the DPP. Usually, the ODPP is requested to make submissions on any bill, by the permanent secretary, any other designated functionary or from parliament itself on instructions. On this occasion, no such request was made of our office.

22. It is totally outside of the protocols of the office to offer opinions on bills on which you have not been expressly invited so to do. If parliament or the executive has a policy then it is the DPP the holder of the office, who may take the initiative in the public interest to issue a comment to be sent to the Minister or the Ministry for their attention and possible action. I received no such communication from the authorities to make any comments on the proposed bill, and neither did I assign anyone from this office to provide commentary or legal opinion of this bill or its possible effect. In any event, given the fact that this bill deals with the officeholder, it would have been most inappropriate for either I or my officers who act on my behalf to provide legal commentary on this bill.

Re: Adijah Palmer and the Privy Council

23. Miss Pyke would never be privy to arrangements as it relates to this matter, which is a highly sensitive matter. It has been a case which at every stage has involved security risks including threats to life. The information as it relates to the representations in the Privy Council would never be revealed to Miss Pyke as it would only be revealed on a need-to-know basis. Miss Pyke is not a member of the Privy Council Unit, she was never a part of the prosecuting team at first instance or in the Court of Appeal.

24. It is clear that after the talk with the HR director and the possible consequences of which she would be aware given her antecedents, that there was a subsequent modification to the letter. The inference can be drawn that having been faced with the lack of support and the indication by the HR director to launch an investigation, Miss Pyke edited the letter that she then signed alone and published.

25. It is with regret as I look at these letters and reflect on some of the issues that I have had to deal with internally as head of chambers in respect of Miss Pyke and the trauma meted out by her to some members of staff, I consider it to be very sad that someone with such a brilliant mind could have declined so far and it seems allowed her eccentricities and extraneous considerations to overcome her skill and focus as a prosecutor.

26. I have been privileged as DPP to have facilitated the growth and evolution of the ODPP from 23 lawyers and an office with one air conditioning unit in the building, to an office with 58 lawyers with first accommodations and amenities, totally a first class library, professional codes of conducts, decision to prosecute and disclosure protocols, notwithstanding the attrition and new recruits, we have always been able to maintain full complement and high-quality units, (i.e Anti-Gang Unit, Cybercrimes And Digital Forensics Unit, Extradition, Environment Matters/Referrals, Human Rights, Intellectual Property And Sexual Offences And Human Trafficking Unit, Judicial Review Unit, Mutual Legal Assistance And Financial Services Matters Unit, Legal And Legislative Reform Unit, Privy Council Unit and the Witness Care Unit)

27. All are headed by Senior Deputies and Deputies who are effective, who know how to use emotional intelligence and are professional. These units are highly respected by members of the private bar, law enforcement and colleagues' agencies, both public and private for the quality of our work including the prosecution many high-profile cases at the Parish Court and High Court and certainly the work in the Court of Appeal our work is lauded at every level. Under my tenure, the ODPP Jamaica is the only prosecutorial agency in the Caribbean that consistently prosecutes all our complex cases ourselves thereby providing opportunities for our respective Crown Counsel to develop in several areas of expertise. I have insisted that our astute management team lead from the front and like myself has an open-door policy and focuses on mentoring as part of organisational DNA to prevent the occurrence of nepotism and favouritism in all spheres and to emphasise fairness and transparency in all our processes.

28. Jamaica's ODPP is highly respected and regarded by our international partners and our office provides resources to other prosecuting agencies, locally and internationally and has facilitated the promotion of over 25 lawyers who have ascended to the bench in the 8 years and all these persons have benefited from the quality of our mentoring.

29. Having discussed all the prevailing issues, my HR Director has advised me that we will have to invite the Office of the Services Commission to conduct a full investigation into the unprofessional conduct of Miss Pyke which has put the office into disrepute, in order to rid the process of any semblance of bias and ascertain the truth concerning this matter.

Follow The Gleaner on Twitter and Instagram @JamaicaGleaner and on Facebook @GleanerJamaica. Send us a message on WhatsApp at 1-876-499-0169 or email us at onlinefeedback@gleanerjm.com or editors@gleanerjm.com.