The DPP should withdraw statements

By Devon Dick

In the aftermath of Resident Magistrate (RM) Judith Pusey upholding the no-case submission made by attorneys-at-law K.D. Knight and Deborah Martin for former Member of Parliament Kern Spencer and his former assistant Coleen Wright, Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Paula Llewellyn made some statements which were un-fortunate and, hopefully, she would withdraw them on mature reflection.

Llewellyn said she could understand the concern of those citizens who felt that justice was not served; there was an abundance of evidence; if she had the power of appeal she would have done so, and she would challenge on a point of law. The impression I formed was that she was challenging the judge's competence in law. This has the potential to undermine confidence in the judiciary and the justice system.

Government lawyers

Recently, I commented that government lawyers were good and not inferior to high-profile lawyers. In fact, in the celebrated Donald 'Zeeks' Phipps case, former don, who was convicted of double murder, the lead prosecutor was Llewellyn, who was then senior DPP.

The DPP, after the sentencing of Vbyz Kartel, said it is her policy not to comment on the length of sentencing given by a judge. It should be a similar policy of hers not to express her thoughts on the correctness of a verdict that goes against the prosecution. Furthermore, an RM does not have the opportunity to respond to her. In any case, it would be inappropriate for the RM to respond to any of the DPP's media statements.

For the DPP to claim that she could understand those citizens who believe justice was not served opens to many interpretations. Was the claim that the office of DPP did a poor job and so justice was not served? Or was it that the defence team and/or the RM did some underhand activity so justice was not served? It is better for the DPP to withdraw that statement. Furthermore, would the DPP be similarly understanding of those citizens who feel that justice was not served in the Vybz Kartel case?

Kartel verdict accepted

In the case involving Kartel, the lead defence lawyer, Tom Tavares-Finson, said to all who had ears to hear that he accepted the verdict of the court. He could have said things to inflame supporters of Kartel but he was very responsible.

The claim that there was an abundance of evidence needs better particulars. The DPP would need to state the evidence not only in court but through a press release rather than expect the public to accept it as a given. This statement has very serious implications on the RM. The DPP should withdraw that statement because it appears to challenge the competence of the RM.

In England, a coach of a football team cannot criticise a referee's decision even when there is a glaring breach. The point is that those who are directly involved in the game do not bring it into disrepute by criticisms. A similar posture should be adopted by the DPP in relation to rulings from an RM or judge of no criticism, even if well founded. There should be other recourse to deal with grievous judgments. Commen-tators and civil society can criticise a judge, but not any of the officers of the court, such as the prosecutors and/or the defence team. Additionally, every ruling by a judge will be criticised because either the defence team or the prosecution team will be unhappy.

Let us hope that in the interest of the justice system and since the RM cannot respond to these statements that the DPP would withdraw those comments.

Rev Devon Dick is pastor of the Boulevard Baptist Church in St Andrew. He is author of 'The Cross and the Machete', and 'Rebellion to Riot'. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.