On RM Pusey's case

By Devon Dick

On Monday, A.W. Sangster ended his letter to the editor by asking four questions related to senior magistrate Judith Pusey's no-case submission in the Kern Spencer light bulb case. Apparently, Sangster disagrees with Pusey's ruling but he does not give any argument to support his position. Instead, he quotes the Observer's editorial extensively but gives one sentence to me: "Columnist Rev Devon Dick argued that 'the DPP should withdraw her statements'."

I argued that the director of public prosecutions' (DPP) statements have "the potential to undermine confidence in the judiciary and the justice system" because she questioned the judge's competence on law publicly and the resident magistrate (RM) could not respond. In addition, I was uncomfortable with the DPP claiming that she could understand those citizens who believe justice was not served, as that sympathy could have many interpretations. Finally, she claimed in the media that there was an abundance of evidence before the RM.

OTHER RECOURSE NEEDED

And since the DPP is an officer of the judicial system she should not do anything to undermine it publicly, even if well founded in law. I stated then that, "There should be other recourse to deal with grievous judgments." In other words, those same concerns which the DPP has could have been sent to the chief justice for action because RMs do make mistakes. I am aware that a RM made a mistake and had to be corrected in court by the prosecution and the decision was reversed.

In addition, just as in Vybz Kartel's murder case, the police released voice notes, the DPP could release the evidence that was given in court and allow the public to decide.

On the issue of the RM Judith Pusey not offering reasons for the no-case submission, she should not be blamed since the law does not require it. It is not a good idea to leave giving reasons for a no-case submission to the discretion of the RM when it has public interest. It should be that in all cases the RM should give the reason(s). Therefore, a law should make it mandatory.

Sangster ends his letter asking two questions: 1. Did the judge decide to give a no-case judgment knowing that there was no possibility of appeal?

2. Did the fact that there was a trial judgment against Justice (sic) Pusey influence her decision?

Should have excused herself

I would proffer a no-case submission for Pusey to answer. However, Pusey could have and should have excused herself from the Spencer trial after she lost a judgment brought by her to the higher courts. Since she was found wrong procedurally and in law, then she should have withdrawn herself since her competence and credibility were affected by the higher courts' ruling.

Justice must be manifestly done, and as the Bible says, 'flee the very appearance of evil.'

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.