DPP on dangerous path

The decision of the director of public prosecution (DPP) to proceed with action against a senior resident magistrate after the Supreme Court dismissed the application is unfortunate. Supreme Court Judge Lloyd Hibbert refused an application filed by the DPP, Paula Llewellyn, for leave to take her case against Senior Resident Magistrate Judith Pusey to the Judicial Review Court.

The DPP wants the senior magistrate removed from the Cuban light-bulb trial on the grounds of apparent bias.Justice Hibbert dismissed the application on the basis that it was premature, unfounded and without merit. The judge also said no proper application was made to the RM for her to withdraw from the case and no order of refusal from Pusey which could properly form the basis of judicial-review proceedings.

This ruling by Justice Hibbert has raised questions about the procedural competence of the DPP. And instead of the DPP continuing the case which is about former junior minister, Kern Spencer, and co-accused Coleen Wright, Spencer's former personal assistant, who are charged with fraud and corruption for allegedly benefiting improperly from the Cuban light-bulb programme, the DPP was seeking once again to have Pusey recuse herself from the case on the grounds of apparent bias arising from alleged comments made in court. However, the DPP ought to be reminded that it is not the judge that is on trial but Spencer and Wright.

Bias

It must be remembered that even if the judge has shown apparent bias she can still make a fair ruling. Unless there is blatant bias or the judge is a relative of one of the accused the DPP should soldier on with the real matter that is before the courts. Furthermore, the DPP, in the charge of perjury against Agriculture Minister Christopher Tufton, Permanent Secretary Donovan Stanberry and consultant Aubyn Hill by the contractor general, said she could not proceed against the men because it would be hard to prove intent. I have read the contractor general's report of 148 pages on the Aubyn Hill contract and if she could not find proof with all the documentary evidence and sequence of events, then it will be harder to prove intent on the part of the judge concerning apparent bias, based on statements and posture.

Furthermore, if it is true that the DPP has taken even one comment out of context, then that raises questions again on the issue of competence.

The reality of life is that everybody has prejudices and biases. Lawyers also state that some judges are harsh on certain abuses and they try to avoid those judges. And the converse is true, believing that some judges are more lenient on certain offences. There is also statement that some judges may turn a blind eye if a defendant is a lodge brother. Many marriage counsellors will tell you that when a married couple visits the office because of differences, invariably, one party always claims that that the counsellor is biased. Even columnists are charged with political bias. The DPP should have proceeded after Justice Hibbert's ruling. The Supreme Court should have respected the ruling and moved on with the case.

What if the DPP is turned down again? Then she is going to take it to the Supreme Court to get a ruling for it. What if the defence does not like the new judge or the DPP thinks a new judge shows apparent bias? When and how will it end? And what precedents are we setting?

The DPP is on a dangerous path.

Devon Dick is pastor of the Boulevard Baptist Church and author of 'The Cross and the Machete: Native Baptists of Jamaica - Identity, Ministry and Legacy'. Feedback may be sent to columns@gleanerjm.com