The DPP does appear in court cases

Jan 12, 2016 Letters

Dear Editor,
Reference is made to your published letter, “The DPP should have appeared,” page 6 of Sunday January 10, 2016 edition. Please be made aware of the following facts in the Matter of The State vs. Kevin Jordan for the offence of Buggery: 1. Bail in the sum of the $lM was granted by the Court of Appeal onDecember2l’,201’5 based on the fact that Kevin Jordan is likely to succeed on Appeal; 2. The majority verdict of 11 guilty to 1 not guilty by the jury was not properly received by the trial judge since it was in contravention of section 158 of the Criminal Law (Procedure) Act Cap. 10:01 which speaks to a minimum requirement of two hours deliberation by the jury once the verdict is not unanimous, meaning all twelve members of the jury are not in agreement; the jury in this particular case deliberated for 70 minutes. 3. The above mention section 158 has been interpreted in several cases by the Appellate Court to be mandatory, meaning it must be strictly complied with; in similar cases which were ventilated in the Appellate Court, the convicted person was not completely exonerated on appeal, but retrials were ordered in those cases; 4. lt is conceded that indeed the offence committed by Kevin Jordon on this child is horrific, but let it be known that regardless of which state attorney appeared in this matter, the decision of the Court of Appeal would have remained the same given the foregoing; 5. Your writer and readers at large must know that in keeping with her constitutional mandate and responsibility, the Director of Public Prosecutions, Madam Shalimar Ali-Hack does appear in Court matters.
Liz Rahaman

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News