DPP withdraws claim
Published:Wednesday | September 8, 2010 | 12:00 AM
Barbara Gayle, Staff Reporter
Director of Public Prosecutions Paula Llewellyn yesterday withdrew the claim she had filed against Senior Resident Magistrate Judith Pusey.
The claim was withdrawn after Llewellyn's lawyers accepted an indication from Pusey's lawyer, Jacqueline Samuels-Brown, that no order was made for her to give a witness statement in the fraud case against former junior minister Kern Spencer.
On Monday, the Judicial Review Court had asked Samuels-Brown to consult with her client to ascertain if what transpired in court on April 20 was an order.
Samuels-Brown said yesterday she had further consultation and the RM said it was not an order and was an invitation for Llewellyn to write a statement in the matter.
Llewellyn had taken the issue to the Judicial Review Court seeking to have the RM's order quashed. She contended that on April 20 Pusey had compelled her to give a witness statement as to what took place during an interview she had with Rodney Chin when he was Spencer's co-accused. Charges against Chin were subsequently dropped and he is now the Crown's star witness in the case.
Took persuasion
However, it took some amount of persuasion from the court, comprising Supreme Court judges Lloyd Hibbert, Roy Jones and Ingrid Mangatal, for Llewellyn's lawyers to accept the RM's explanation that the order was not made. Diahann Gordon-Harrison, senior deputy director of public prosecutions, argued that they were not prepared to say that an order was not made and referred to sections of the notes in which she said the RM had in fact made the order.
Gordon-Harrison stressed that the RM was at the case-management conference and did not indicate then that she did not make an order. She said if the court ruled there was no order then they would just have to proceed with the trial.
Hibbert pointed out that, towards the end of the comments, the RM was saying, "I invite you to give a statement." He said if the person who made the order said it was not an order, it would not adversely affect the DPP. He pointed out that no formal order of the judge's ruling was exhibited, and said when there were differences then the judge's conclusions should be obtained.
Justice Ingrid Mangatal queried whether judicial time was going to be wasted when the RM, who was still in charge of the matter, was saying it was not an order.
"If the person in charge says it was not an order, why are we here?" Mangatal queried.
Following the court's observations, Harrison said she had no choice but to accept the belated communication that it it was not an order. The claim was then withdrawn.
Spencer and co-accused Colleen Wright are to return to the Corporate Area Resident Magistrate's Court on September 17. It is being alleged that they benefited improperly from the implementation of the Cuban light bulb programme.