DPP rejects another Christie report
Published:Wednesday | September 29, 2010 | 12:00 AM
Daraine Luton, Senior Staff Reporter
ANOTHER RECOMMENDATION by Contractor General Greg Christie, for criminal charges to be brought against public officials, has been dismissed by Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Paula Llewellyn.
Christie had suggested that Agriculture Minister Dr Christopher Tufton, his permanent secretary, Donovan Stanberry, and consultant Aubyn Hill be charged with supplying his office with inaccurate information.
The contractor general was examining the circumstances under which Hill, a former investment banker, was given a multimillion-dollar contract to divest the country's sugar assets.
In her ruling made public yesterday, Llewellyn said the Crown would struggle to successful prosecute the case in court.
The dismissal of Christie's recommendation for criminal charge came a day after she ruled that no one was criminally culpable in the award of contracts by the Jamaica Urban Transit Company (JUTC) to companies in which its late executive director, Douglas Chambers, had active interests.
Christie had said a number of persons at the JUTC should be made to answer before the court for their actions.
Hard task
Yesterday, Llewellyn said the prosecution would have a hard task proving that the actions of Hill, Stanberry and Tufton were rooted in criminal intent.
In response to her ruling, Tufton said yesterday that the DPP's decision would assist him in restoring his reputation which, he claimed, was damaged by Christie's report.
"I am happy that the matter has been brought to a speedy conclusion and I hope the process can now begin in terms of restoring my name, which has been adversely impacted because of the publicity around the issue," Tufton told The Gleaner yesterday.
He said Christie's report has created an impression in the court of public opinion which has "negatively impacted perception about myself as a person and what I do in terms of my job".
"While we accept that we are not above public scrutiny, at the same time we believe that the process in carrying out that scrutiny should be done in a manner which allows persons to defend themselves before it reaches the stage where the impressions are formed that could adversely impact people's integrity and reputation," Tufton said.
Christie opined that the men were in breach of the law when they submitted documents which described the two relevant contracts awarded to Hill as employment contracts. He suggested they be charged with perjury.
However, Llewellyn said the men's attempt to correct their initial statement suggested, as they claim, an error was made in the original submission to the contractor general.