EDITORIAL - DPP going too far

As a constitutional officer of the court, Paula Llewellyn, the director of public prosecutions (DPP), faces a greater burden than the rest of us to guard its integrity and ensure its legitimacy as a critical pillar of our democracy. We are concerned that the DPP may be misplacing that obligation in the face of a driving ego amid personal disappointment over the outcome of a case.

It is a point we made, perhaps too subtly, last week when we commented on Ms Llewellyn's public posture after the acquittal of the former junior energy minister, Kern Spencer, and his administrative assistant, Coleen Wright, for corruption and money laundering in the Cuban light bulb affair.

For while we accept, and insist on, and avail ourselves of the right that the judiciary cannot be above questioning and criticism, we feel that Ms Llewellyn should take stock.

It was a long case - six years of meandering that included verbal and legal clashes between the DPP and the presiding magistrate Judith Pusey. Among the contretemps, settled in Ms Llewellyn's favour by the High Court, was whether the DPP could be subpoenaed as a defence witness to give testimony on a meeting she held with a former accused, prior to charges being dropped again in return for giving evidence for the Crown.

Last week, Resident Magistrate Pusey ruled that Mr Spencer and Ms Wright had no case to answer.

Ms Llewellyn has made it clear that had she the right of appeal, as is now being proposed for some circumstances in Jamaica, she would. That's well enough.

But Ms Llewellyn, unless we misinterpret her utterances, has done more, and gone too far.

To be sure, despite her attempt to couch her criticisms of RM Pusey's disagreement based on law, tone and context betray something deeper, we suspect.

PUSEY'S COMPETENCE QUESTIONED

For instance, when an interviewer juxtaposed the outcomes of the Spencer-Wright case and the guilty verdict in the Vybz Kartel murder trial, placing the different decisions in the context of class and argued that justice in Jamaica was on trial, Ms Llewellyn agreed that "justice was not served" in the Spencer-Wright decision.

Then there was the television discussion programme in which Ms Llewellyn pursued her belief that the magistrate had made an error in the law, which is a position she is entitled to hold and declare. What was disconcerting, unless we misapprehended her intent, was the DPP's reference to two cases on which Ms Pusey had returned guilty verdicts but was overruled at appeal. That appeared to us, circuitous though the effort may have been, a questioning of Judith Pusey's competence as a magistrate.

Unlike the DPP and judges of the Supreme and appeal courts, magistrates do not have security of tenure. There is no requirement for the convening of high tribunals to remove them from office.

In that regard, if the DPP believes that Ms Pusey is judicially incompetent, or worse, she should, and can, properly raise the matter with the chief justice so that the applicable civil-service regulations be activated and the appropriate decisions arrived at.

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.