Dear Editor,
In recent days, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has come in for considerable flak on account of decisions tactical and otherwise taken by her office, as well as outcomes of judgments at the trial stage and reversals on appeal. The case against Sergeant Kelly in the Buckfield shooting, the case against the Cash Plus principal, and the overturn on appeal of the convictions of SSP Harry "Bungles" Daley and Tesha Miller, come to mind.
The commentary has been strident from several quarters, with some aimed at the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) and some aimed squarely at the DPP herself. Some commentators have feigned sympathy and understanding in her favour, but many of the loudest voices have screamed insults and cast derogatory comments in her direction. Some have even mooted that she should be removed from office. One editorial characterised her explanations as waffling.
Many of the criticisms are simply stated and quite straightforward, often appealing to common sense, for example:
(1) Why did the Crown not expend funds and effort to locate and bring the pathologist, Dr Rao, back to Jamaica to testify as to the cause of death? Certainly, it could not be that it was difficult to locate him as members of the JFJ executive stated that they were able to be in touch with the goodly doctor and so if the DPP had tried, she too could have located him.
(2) Why was it so hard to locate the person who shot the video and to secure the instrument that shot the video? Social media could have been used to find the person; the person could be put in Witness Protection locally or overseas and made to safely testify via video link.
As the DPP sought to defend the actions of her office - or educate the public as she may prefer to say - it appears that she did let slip on public radio, her frustration at the political directorate for not adequately resourcing the ODPP. No malice was detected in her statements, as my understanding is that she soldiers on even when resources are limited, when senior prosecutors depart the office, etc. But whether or not she meant her statements about lack of resources to be a mild rebuke or not, the assertion of a lack of sufficient resources cannot be ignored.
Even if Dr Rao was located and flown back to testify, would the Government or rather, would the DPP be able to have Dr Rao on hand for the scores of murder cases scheduled to come on for trial and for which he was the pathologist? Which cases should he be brought back for and what if after coming for the first 10 cases, he did not have the stomach to return for the other 20 or so? What then should the DPP do?
If tactical decisions are being taken by the DPP in husbanding the limited resources at her disposal, could it be that she has found herself between the proverbial rock and a hard place? For as a professional in the Government service, she ought not to make a habit of publicly criticising her superiors or her minister or the Government for that matter. Neither can she go about begging corporate Jamaica to assist with airfare and lodging for Dr Rao, so that he can testify in a Jamaican court of law.
With the DPP being pilloried from post to post while at the same time being restricted in how much she can publicly comment about the lack of required resources to properly administer the office, perhaps she will continue to make tactical decisions that draw the ire of the public. Or will it be fair to say that the DPP has dropped the ball if there is no appeal of the recent decision in the Harry "Bungles" Daley case, or the Tesha Miller case? Will a nolle prosequi be on offer in the upcoming case of the 25-year-old pregnant woman who was killed by the policeman in Yallas in 2012?
Christopher Pryce
christopherjmpryce@yahoo.com
Unfair attack on the DPP
-->
In recent days, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has come in for considerable flak on account of decisions tactical and otherwise taken by her office, as well as outcomes of judgments at the trial stage and reversals on appeal. The case against Sergeant Kelly in the Buckfield shooting, the case against the Cash Plus principal, and the overturn on appeal of the convictions of SSP Harry "Bungles" Daley and Tesha Miller, come to mind.
The commentary has been strident from several quarters, with some aimed at the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) and some aimed squarely at the DPP herself. Some commentators have feigned sympathy and understanding in her favour, but many of the loudest voices have screamed insults and cast derogatory comments in her direction. Some have even mooted that she should be removed from office. One editorial characterised her explanations as waffling.
Many of the criticisms are simply stated and quite straightforward, often appealing to common sense, for example:
(1) Why did the Crown not expend funds and effort to locate and bring the pathologist, Dr Rao, back to Jamaica to testify as to the cause of death? Certainly, it could not be that it was difficult to locate him as members of the JFJ executive stated that they were able to be in touch with the goodly doctor and so if the DPP had tried, she too could have located him.
(2) Why was it so hard to locate the person who shot the video and to secure the instrument that shot the video? Social media could have been used to find the person; the person could be put in Witness Protection locally or overseas and made to safely testify via video link.
As the DPP sought to defend the actions of her office - or educate the public as she may prefer to say - it appears that she did let slip on public radio, her frustration at the political directorate for not adequately resourcing the ODPP. No malice was detected in her statements, as my understanding is that she soldiers on even when resources are limited, when senior prosecutors depart the office, etc. But whether or not she meant her statements about lack of resources to be a mild rebuke or not, the assertion of a lack of sufficient resources cannot be ignored.
Even if Dr Rao was located and flown back to testify, would the Government or rather, would the DPP be able to have Dr Rao on hand for the scores of murder cases scheduled to come on for trial and for which he was the pathologist? Which cases should he be brought back for and what if after coming for the first 10 cases, he did not have the stomach to return for the other 20 or so? What then should the DPP do?
If tactical decisions are being taken by the DPP in husbanding the limited resources at her disposal, could it be that she has found herself between the proverbial rock and a hard place? For as a professional in the Government service, she ought not to make a habit of publicly criticising her superiors or her minister or the Government for that matter. Neither can she go about begging corporate Jamaica to assist with airfare and lodging for Dr Rao, so that he can testify in a Jamaican court of law.
With the DPP being pilloried from post to post while at the same time being restricted in how much she can publicly comment about the lack of required resources to properly administer the office, perhaps she will continue to make tactical decisions that draw the ire of the public. Or will it be fair to say that the DPP has dropped the ball if there is no appeal of the recent decision in the Harry "Bungles" Daley case, or the Tesha Miller case? Will a nolle prosequi be on offer in the upcoming case of the 25-year-old pregnant woman who was killed by the policeman in Yallas in 2012?
Christopher Pryce
christopherjmpryce@yahoo.com
Unfair attack on the DPP
-->