LYNCHING A PUBLIC OFFICAL IN PUBLIC

Apr 05, 2012 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

 

 

Poor Henry Greene! He is being lynched in the court of public opinion! Wild West style!
What is alarming is not the decision of the Chief Justice but the reaction to the decision. Instead of examining the decision on its merits, what we have is a reaction to which side the decision favours.
While the decision of the Chief Justice went in favour of the Commissioner, ultimately, the integrity of the law has been reinforced by this decision because it affirms fundamentally that people should not be unfairly charged.
There can be disagreement, as there is, as to whether the Chief Justice’s analysis of the evidence was right. Many are however jumping to conclusions without having studied the decision and many others care little to do so since for them the central issue is Henry Greene and not the rationality of the decision to charge him.
For many, if not for most, who are opposed to the decision of the Chief Justice, the issue is not whether rape was committed; the issue is Henry Greene.
There is a large mob out there who for a long time has wanted the neck of Henry Greene, and for no other reason than the fact that he is seen as supportive of the government. That is his greatest crime.
Perhaps if we were trusted interlocutor of the United States embassy or if he openly discussed national security matters with opposition politicians, he may have been spared this campaign of hatred to which he has been subjected to long before the allegations of rape were leveled against him.
When he collapsed months ago and had to be hospitalized there were vicious forces out there commenting, quite insensitively, that he was on his deathbed. For some they do not care how he goes, once he goes.
And so too with many of those who are against him in relation to the rape allegations. Their objective has nothing to do with seeking justice for the woman who was raped. All they want is the head of Henry Greene because they see him as supportive of the government and want him to go. In this regard Henry Greene has already been tried and convicted and all that is required is sentencing.
Henry Greene and everyone else is however entitled to be treated fairly and equally before the law and if we trample on this right we are jeopardizing our own liberty. Henry Greene has a right to seek such a judicial review of the decision to charge him.
There are persons however who feel that the Commissioner should simply have allowed himself to be charged, and defend his actions in court.
Some of those persons have alluded to the wide discretion normally granted to the DPP and have even referred to a Privy Council case in which it is said that the courts were reluctant to permit judicial review of the DPP’s opinions. That case involved an appeal by a top judicial official in Trinidad against a ruling by the Court of Appeal quashing a decision by a judge who had granted leave of appeal.
The issue at hand there was whether the charges by the police were politically-inspired. The Court of Appeal in that jurisdiction did not find evidence of this and Privy Council agreed that no such evidence was shown.
On the other hand, in the case of the application to the Courts in Guyana, the Chief Justice was being asked to determine whether there was a rational basis for a charge to be levied against the Commissioner.
The Chief Justice asked the DPP to provide everything that informed her decision and having perused what was submitted ruled that there was no rational basis.
The Chief Justice’s ruling is of significance to every single person in this society because it affirms the common sense position that a person should not be charged unless there is rational basis for such a charge. In this instance, charges were recommended against the Commissioner, but it could have been you or someone you know who faced such a charge.
What if there were no compelling reasons for the charge or if the prosecution’s case was weak?
Persons should not be charged unless there is a strong case and a strong case means the evidence must be admissible and reliable and the persons proffering the evidence must have credibility. More importantly there must be a strong likelihood of a successful prosecution.
Those who are against the Chief Justice’s ruling have a right to so disagree, but they must do so not on the basis of sentiment but on an assessment of the decision itself.
The fact is that there are many persons out there who are not interested in what the Chief Justice has to say because for them the real issue is not the person who alleged she was raped. For them this issue is a political matter since they would love to see the back of the Commissioner because this would be some form of poetic justice for them.
Those persons are blinded to the possibility of Henry Greene being the victim in this case.

---

---