EDITORIAL - Resisting temptations

Like Paula Llewellyn, the director of public prosecutions (DPP), this newspaper believes that the prosecution should have a right of appeal. We also believe in the absolute right of individuals to disagree with the decisions of the courts and to question the application of the law by the judiciary, once such debates are not contemptuous of the court.

Indeed, this newspaper avails itself of that right. We are, however, mindful that bringing the court into disrepute undermines its legitimacy and erodes the basis of law and justice which are essential for the functioning of a modern, democratic society.

These are precepts to which Ms Llewellyn says she adheres and which she often declares - as she did on Monday in the immediate aftermath of the acquittal of Kern Spencer, the former government minister, and Colleen Wright, who used to be his administrative assistant, on corruption and money-laundering charges. They were accused of siphoning into companies they controlled from a project that was to distribute, free of charge, energy-saving light bulbs contributed by the Cuban government.

It was a long trial, punctuated by legal disagreements-- and some believe a clash of egos - between Ms Llewellyn and the presiding magistrate, Judith Pusey. Ms Llewellyn's and the broader prosecution's disappointment of Ms Pusey's dismissal of the case without asking Mr Spencer and Ms Wright to proffer a defence is understandable. Many Jamaicans, we expect, share that disappointment.

Insisting that there was an "abundance of evidence" against Mr Spencer and Ms Wright, Ms Llewellyn has said that were the right of appeal available to her, she would use it.

Although some of her comments about the outcome of the case were pregnant with implication, she, for the most part, managed to hover at the edge without going over the precipice. Except, that is, for when she allowed herself to be goaded by an interviewer into agreeing that in the outcome of the case, "justice was not served".

The orientation of justice

That remark has to be viewed in a context of a discussion that posited that justice was on trial in Jamaica and juxtaposed the Spencer/Wright case against the murder trial of the dancehall deejay Vybz Kartel, et al, and the outcome of one, versus the other, was an indication of a difference of the orientation of justice, based on social standing. In the circumstances, some people might misinterpret Ms Llewellyn to be agreeing that not only was RM Pusey's ruling wrong in law and fact, but manifestly corrupt.

The DPP, we feel, should clarify her remark.

At the same time, given the circumstances of this case, we believe that it would be useful for Magistrate Pusey to deliver a written decision, following her verbal ruling. Her perspective, for instance, on the process by which Rodney Chin transformed from accused to defence witness, and how, in her view, it impacted the fairness of the case, would, perhaps, add context to the discussion.

Indeed, this was one of the legal side issues that went to the Supreme and appeal courts over whether the defence could subpeona the DPP to give evidence. While that was resolved in Ms Llewellyn's favour, it is not clear that the ruling placed any particular constraint on the magistrate on how to view Mr Chin's metamorphosis. Moreover, the case was too fundamental and the issue argued of too great a legal value for it not to be reported.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.