Sat | Jul 4, 2026

Paula Llewellyn granted permission to intervene in job extension appeal

Published:Tuesday | May 28, 2024 | 5:12 PM
File photo.

King's Counsel Paula Llewellyn has been given permission to intervene in the appeal filed against the Constitutional Court's ruling concerning her extension in the job as Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).

The parties in the case and Court of Appeal today agreed to allow her to intervene as an interested party. 

An expedited hearing was today granted by the court and the appeal is set to start on June 24.

The arrangements were made at a case management conference in chambers at the Court of Appeal, which was presided over by Justice Jennifer Straw.

Douglas Leys, KC, who is representing Llewellyn, made the application today for her to intervene in the appeal.

The Government amended the Constitution in July last year to raise the age of retirement for the DPP and the Auditor General from 60 to 65.

In April, the Constitutional Court ruled that that provision was valid.

However, the court ruled that the amendment giving Llewellyn the power to elect to remain on the job was null and void and of no legal effect.

The DPP reached the age of retirement in 2020 but got a three-year extension which ended in September 2023.

She was on a second extension when Opposition Member of Parliament Philip Paulwell and Senator Peter Bunting challenged the amendment to the Constitution.

The claimants sought a declaration that Llewellyn should not remain in office beyond September last year when her extension ended and they were successful.

Following the ruling, Llewellyn stepped aside to await the outcome of the appeal brought by the Government.

Senior Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Claudette Thompson was appointed to act as DPP.

In the grounds of appeal, the lawyers for the Attorney General, who is the appellant, will be arguing that the retirement provisions and maintaining the intended retirements for all affected public officers such as the DPP and the Auditor General are in alignment with section 95 of the Constitution.

The appellant is contending that the Constitutional Court erred in its decision and is seeking to have the decision quashed.

- Barbara Gayle

Follow The Gleaner on X, formerly 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.