At any criminal trial, the Prosecution’s obligation is to prove two limbs of each charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

These are “actus reus” (the physical act) and “mens rea”(the intention to act o/c “criminal intent”).  If the Prosecution becomes aware, from whatever source, that an accused citizen intends to explain his actions by way of specific allegation which, if true, might compromise a Magistrate’s ability to find the requisite criminal intent, it’s the Prosecution’s duty to adduce, at trial, any available rebuttal evidence.

The layman’s legal authority (NBC’s Law and Order) says:In the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate yet equally important groups; the police who investigate crime, and the district attorneys who prosecute the offenders.”  As one of “the people” so represented I demand that the two groups work together in my interest.

So, for example, if:

  1. A citizen is accused of corruption by interfering with police trying to quash a traffic ticket;
  2. The accused citizen warns the prosecution, whether directly or inadvertently, that he alleges his actions were sanctioned by the Police Commissioner,

this ought to raise bright red flags in the D.P.P.’s office because, if it’s true, then proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the citizen intended to do something criminal would be impossible.  Any citizen can be excused for believing that actions approved by the Police Commissioner weren’t criminal.   Any Prosecutor then awaiting receipt of a statement from the Commissioner before proceeding to trial would be a prudent prosecutor executing his solemn duty to the Jamaican people in whose name the prosecution is brought.

But, in my opinion, should the D.P.P. then take a contrary course and announce to the court before trial; before even receiving the statement, that the Commissioner won’t be called, that D.P.P. would be derelict in his duty to the Jamaican people.  If the D.P.P. were to base this decision on an assertion that any attempt by the accused citizen to make his allegation at trial would be inadmissible for hearsay then, in my opinion, the D.P.P. would be taking an unnecessary risk based upon an unsound view of the law and weak legal strategy.

The first error such a D.P.P. would be making is to anticipate a Magistrate’s ruling on an objection at trial without using a functioning crystal ball.  What is the D.P.P.’s Plan B if the Magistrate disagrees and allows the accused citizen to give the “hearsay” evidence?  Appeal?  That would be a waste of time and public resources.  Take out Judicial Review proceedings against the Magistrate?  That would be an abuse of the court’s process.  Why tempt such a legal kerfuffle rather than simply asking the Commissioner to testify?

At the very least, I believe it’s the prosecution’s solemn duty in this type of situation to obtain a statement from the Commissioner.  And it’s the solemn public duty of the Commissioner to give one.  The result will either be that the accused’s allegation is confirmed or contradicted.  If it’s confirmed, it’ll be exculpatory evidence that the prosecution must use or make available to the Defence.  If it’s contradicted, it’ll be important evidence assisting the prosecution to discharging its onus of proving mens rea.

So, why would a D.P.P. act in this way with advance warning of the Accused’s defence?  Why take this highly risky course of action?  Why, in the rush, throw a senior Deputy D.P.P. under the bus so publicly?

What’s this?  Law and Order dubwise?

As one of “the people” represented, I’m demanding that my Police Commissioner immediately give a formal statement directly addressing the accused’s public allegation of the Commissioner’s involvement in the matter.  I demand the D.P.P. review that statement BEFORE deciding whether to call the Commissioner or if he should be made available to the defence. In these circumstances, the D.P.P. could also consider withdrawing what the public must infer is public chastisement of a Deputy D.P.P. for doing his job.

The only situation in which any policeman would be entitled to remain silent is if he is himself suspected of criminal involvement and NOBODY has made this allegation.  If he’s suspected, then he must be warned like every other citizen at which time he’ll be fully entitled to remain silent.  If not he must unhesitatingly assist both arms of the criminal justice system.

Both my representative groups must leave no stone unturned in this prosecution.  If the accused persons are guilty, I want them convicted.  No dubwise Law or Order, please.

Peace and Love


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: