A case of flawed analysis

Mar 13, 2012 Letters

Dear Editor,
There is an interesting matter engaging the attention of the Chief Justice — involving the Commissioner of Police and the DPP. The DPP apparently instructed the Police to charge the Commissioner with rape and the Commissioner approached the High Court for an order preventing him being prosecuted.
The Chief Justice issued an order calling upon the DPP for her to show why her order should not be quashed. I find the proceedings very interesting and yesterday’s report in a newspaper has prompted me to add a few words, as I see it.
The Chief Justice is reported to have told counsel for the DPP that he did not ask that the DPP show whether there was sufficient evidence— what the Chief Justice said was that what he wanted was an analysis by the DPP detailing her thinking at the time she recommended the prosecution of the Commissioner.
At first blush it seems to me that an analysis of anyone’s thinking on a matter as this would necessarily involve the exercise of a discretion whether the witnesses who will testify should be believed. If that is so, then it becomes a question of fact for the consideration of a jury and no one shall attempt to direct the jury what facts they should accept or reject.
A jury in Common Law countries cannot be asked to give reasons for their findings on facts.
But I have a more fundamental question in mind. Does the Chief Justice have the jurisdiction to question the DPP at this stage? If the person is charged then a preliminary inquiry will be held and if no case is made out it will be thrown out. On the other hand if there is a committal the DPP has the power and authority to enter a nolle prosequi and the person will be free.
The Constitution provides for the DPP not to be subject to the direction or control of any person or authority, and this includes a Chief Justice.
The DPP is also invested with power and authority to take over any criminal prosecution and discontinue same. Can that power be challenged if she takes over a case pending in the Court and order the discontinuance of same?
This action brought by Henry Greene has very serious implications touching the Constitution and the powers of the DPP. I have been told that many eminent Judges in matters dealing with serious issues have invited the parties to be represented by senior lawyers. Greene has the advantage of senior counsel.
I have no complaints with counsel now appearing for the DPP and I note that a Solicitor General, Ms. Sita Ramlal, has recently been appointed. She is a legal practitioner of many years standing, and her appointment as Solicitor General, who is the principal adviser to the Government, suggests that she is of exceptional ability.
She ought to appear before His Honour along with Mr. Harnanan to represent the DPP’s cause.
Mahadeo Roopchand

Latest News

A case of flawed analysis

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show|| April, 4th, 2025

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

‘One Guyana’ 3×3 Quest Basketball opens with local teams in...

GCA, East Coast surge to huge wins

GFF/Concacaf kick off two-day Match Commissioners...

Chase’s Academic outclass Bartica to move...

Three Miles Secondary make clean sweep of Jagan...

National Chess champions off to Trinidad and...

Features/Columnists

This must not be our hour of humiliation

The U.S. “Joining” the Commonwealth: an unreasonable expectation

Security – Guyana needs it, pays for it

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]

A case of flawed analysis

Share this:

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show|| April, 4th, 2025

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Features/Columnists

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]