Police And DPP In Prosecutorial Quandary

Rawlston Pompey

The idiom; ‘Where there is smoke, though no flame might be visible, there is fire. This idiom speaks to two truths. The second of such truth is; ‘Where there is ‘Fire’ and no pots and pans are seen, it shall never be assumed that food is cooking. In some situations of fire, though extinguished, there is still some degree of heat. Though not actually feeling the effects of ‘Fire or Sun and facing no Jury of her peers or the nozzle of a gun, ‘Acting Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP),’ Shannon Jones-Gittens’ could very well be feeling the ‘Heat of Criminal Prosecutions.’ Given her position, with an apparent bad piece of prosecutorial legislation, backing her up against at a ‘dead-end,’ there is just no place to run.

PROSECUTORIAL MISERY

Seemingly, with a mind in a state of confusion and perplexity, whether by happenstance or expediency, the ‘Acting DPP,’ appeared to have found herself in ‘Comedic Prosecutorial Quandary.’ Such, as inferences may reasonably and safely be drawn, resulted when ‘Criminal Defence Attorney Wendell Robinson,’ made a ‘Submitted ‘In Limine’ certain legal points on behalf of Summary-trial-Defendant, Dean Jonas’ [March 3, 2023]. This has been the ‘Submission’ that triggered ‘Prosecutorial Misery,’ for everybody-’ Magistracy: Defendants/Accused/ Defence Attorneys/ Police/DPP Prosecutors and Witnesses. The ‘Magisterially-Fixed Summary trial, the Prosecution was said to have been ill-prepared to commence ‘Examination in Chief,’ by calling witness to give ‘Evidence on Oath’ against Defendant Dean Jonas.’ Such ill-preparedness for the commencement of trial, forced an adjournment to ‘April 3, 2023.’

FORTUITOUS RULING

Previously advancing certain legal points involving the controversial and seemingly unconstitutional enactment -The ‘Criminal Prosecutions Service Act (CPSA)’ [No. 28 of 2017]. Craving the Court’s indulgence, he sought unsuccessfully to persuade ‘Chief Magistrate, Joanne Walsh’ to dismiss the unlawfully and unwittingly-filed-Complaints.’ Through an apparent ‘Fortuitous Ruling,’ clearly suggestive of an attempt to save prosecutorial embarrassment of; (i) ‘Acting Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Shannon Jones-Gittens; (ii)’Commissioner of Police, Attlee Rodney QPM: (iii) Then Head of Police Prosecutions, Assistant Superintendent, Dane Bontiff.’

SCUFFLED ARREST

The Defendant, slapped with four Summary charges, including the most ridiculously mundane ‘Disorderly Conduct,’ when in firm, stern audible voice. He repeatedly ordered Police officers of his ‘private property, as they sought to assist the mother of ‘an-8-year-old boy child, he undisputedly and putatively fathered. That night, and at his private premise, pandemonium broke out. So too, was a ‘Scuffled Arrest,’ that saw him being subdued to suffer the indignity of being ‘Handcuffed’ and carted off to the ‘St. John’s Police Station.’ He was not only charged, but ‘unlawfully,’ and out of gross professional ignorance, ‘finger printed and photographed and subsequently released on ‘Station Bail.’

BENEFIT OF KNOWLEDGE

It shall neither considered physically harmful, nor to the ‘Knowledge’ for law-abiding citizens to be enlightened about the taking of ‘Fingerprints and Photographs.’ It has been made sufficiently clear, even for ‘Prime Minister Browne’s ‘Little Princess’ to know that; ‘The Police officer in charge of a Police station may cause; (a) ‘The measurements; (b) Photographs; (c) Fingerprints; (d) Palm impressions; and (e) Foot impressions to be taken for the purposes of (i) Identification; (ii) Use; Use; or (iii) Record.’ The qualifications; (a) ‘The person must be in ‘Lawful Custody;’ and (b). For any ‘INDICTABLE’ offence’ [Section 30: Police Act: Chapter 330].

DUTY AND AUTHORITY

The ‘Judicial Committee of the ‘Privy Council’ were very careful in differentiating for the benefit of ‘Legislators and the Police’ that which was; (a) ‘A statutorily imposed Duty’ upon the Commissioner of Police; and (b) That which was ‘Exercisable Authority’ by the DPP.’ In their collective legal and judicial reasoning and wisdom; (i) ‘Lady Brenda Hale: (ii) Lord John Kerr: (iii) Lord Richard Wilson; (iv) Lord Anthony Hughes; and (v) Lord Roger Toulson.’ Their dictum states: ‘If the DPP exercises his ‘Power,’ he does so in his own name: It is a ‘Power’ rather than a ‘Duty; He can elect not to exercise it, that is: Not to institute such proceedings.’

CONFERRED POWER v EXERCISE OF AUTHORITY

The ‘Lady and Law Lords’ were adamant that; ‘No express power is given to the ‘DPP’ to control the ‘Exercise of Power’ of any other ‘Person or Authority’ to institute criminal proceedings’ against an offending person.’ The learned and esteemed Jurists not only speaks to the ‘Conferred Power’ upon the Police by ‘Common Law,’ but also that which sought to buttress it by Statute Law.’ In support of their dictum, they have cited the ‘Judicial Authority; ‘R (Gujra) v Crown Prosecution Service’ [2012: UKSC: 52: 2O13]. But then if ‘Legislators’ failed to inform themselves before sitting in Parliament, they may become as judicially adept, as ‘Her Ladyship and Their Lordships.’

MISGUIDED AND ILL-ADVISED

The prosecutorial difficulty lies not only in the apparent; (i) ‘Misguided and ill-Advised’ Enactment- ‘Criminal Prosecutions Service Act (CPSA)’ [No. 28 of 2017]; (ii) A ‘Criminally-Suspect Letter,’ purportedly authored by estranged, but still substantive holder of the office of DPP, Anthony Armstrong; (iii) A pre-existed ‘Appellate Ruling’ by the ‘London Privy Council; and (iv) An embarrassing and woefully starved of knowledge of an on point and irrefutable ‘Appellate Ruling’ by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC)’ [UKPC 8: PCAPPL: 2014: No. 0083/2011].

LEGAL DUMMIES

Authoritatively, this has been the judicial ruling of the 5-Member Jurists that included four males and one female. The eminent British Jurists, identified in the ‘Appellate Judicial Ruling,’ included; (i) Her Ladyship Brenda Hale; and ‘Their Lordships; (ii) John Kerr: (iii) Richard Wilson: (iv) Anthony Hughes; and (v) Roger Toulson.’ The nation’s constitutionally-status and universally respected ‘Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC), then comprised of four distinguished ‘Law Lords and one Law Lady,’ in very cogent, concise and comprehensible legal language dictaed for those that are not ‘Legal Dummies.’

DPP:  NO MEMBERSHIP – NO PART OF IT

‘The composition and command structure of the ‘Royal Police Force of Antigua and Barbuda,’ as contained in, and statutorily provided in the ‘Police Act’ [PA: Section 6: Chapter 330], does not make the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP)’ a member of the Police Force; and (ii) The Constitution does not make the ‘DPP’ a member of the Police Force and he has no right of command over it.’ This is where those with ‘Legal Minds’ fear as the ‘Prosecutorial Bug.’

FUTILE ATTEMPT: HUFFING FROM VERE BROWNE

Huffing is a very dangerous act. It is like war. In that involving President Putin, he seems to be on a mission to ‘Huff’ the whole of Ukraine.’ Commissioner Atlee Rodney’ was somewhat lucky.’ He was only ‘Huffed’ of one Section-31’ and two Sub-sections from Section 23.’ These dealt with; (i) ‘…Institution of criminal proceedings; and (ii) …Undertaking criminal proceedings.’ The ‘Acting DPP, if prudence so dictates, and she endeavors to know how, and where ‘Huffing’ started. Discrete diligence may guide her thoughts to know why the office had attempted to ‘Huff’ some of the ‘Police Powers’ then residing with ‘Commissioner of Police, Vere Browne’ [June 2, 2008 & August 7, 2008].

QUESTION FOR JCPC

Seemingly, not an easy ‘Nut to Crack,’ with every sinew and muscle, and by a steely resolve, purposefully, firmly, decisively and determinedly, he resisted. Then with the intervention of the office of ‘former Attorney General, Justin L. Simon KC,’ that provided the necessary legal assistance, in staving off the ambitious and apparent collusive attempt. The ‘Question’ then for the ‘London Privy Council’ was; ‘Does the Director of Public Prosecutions have ‘General Power’ to prevent the Police from instituting criminal proceedings.’

HUFFED FROM ATLEE RODNEY

Fourteen years later, it has been ‘Huffed’ from an apparent docile ‘Commissioner of Police, Atlee RODNEY QPM.’ There was no attempt to fight any battle for anyone that is only interested to travel on any ‘Gravy Train.’ From professional knowledge, understanding, and actuality of administrative use and guidance by the ‘Police Act’ among the provisions every person from ‘Sir Wright Fitzhenly George KCN, QPM, CPM, CVO’ to Commissioner of Police, Atlee Rodney QPM,’ there were provisions that were of particular; (i) Administrative; and (ii) Operational interests’ to each ‘Commander.’

COMMAND: SUPERINTENDENCE: CONTROL

The provisions as contained in the ‘Police Act’ that most officers at that level; (a): ‘Had to know; (b) Deemed to know; and would have been considered (c) Reckless not to know,’ are; ‘Sections 6: 22; and 23.’ The former speaks to; (i) ‘Composition of the Police Service and designated ranks; (ii) Command and control; General directions of Minister. ‘For ease of reference, it states; ‘The Police Force shall consist of a Commissioner of Police.’ He is to be subject to the Law: (i) ‘The provisions of Law, as contained in the Police Act; and (ii) General Directions of the Minister with responsibility for the Police’ [Section 6 (1) (a)].

SUPREME LAW

The ‘Criminal Prosecutions Service Act,’ seems not to show ‘Harmonizing Consistency’ with the ‘Supreme Law- the Constitution,’ the universally-respected ‘Appellate Judicial Ruling’ by the ‘London Privy Council.’ For ease of reference, the part of the ‘Dictum’ that seemed most profound, is contained herein. To all intents and purposes, the esteemed ‘British Jurists’ ended their judicial review on the historic judicial dictum of eminent ‘British Jurist, Lord Denning, Master of the Roll.’

MISGUIDED – MIXED-UP – MESSED UP

It seemed a ‘Comedy of Errors’ has been made, and so may have been wimps and puppets. For instance, ‘Criminal Complaints’ were filed in the name; ‘Commissioner of Police,’ but absurdly, if not ludicrously, the ‘Commissioner’ required authorization (FIAT) from ‘Acting Director of Public Prosecutions’ to undertake prosecutions, when she executed ‘NO’ Law. A dog with a bone will always be seen as being better positioned than a person without brain. Clearly, the Legislators; ‘Director of Public Prosecutions; Crown Councils; and the Commissioner of Police,’ all appeared to have been ‘Misguided; Mixed-up and Messed up.’

ILLUSIONS OF AUTHORITY

There have been widespread suggestions that the ‘Acting DPP’ seemed to be under ‘Illusions’ that she enjoys ‘Authority over the Commissioner’ not residing in the ‘Office of the ‘DPP.’ Harboring such ‘Illusion,’ could easily be equated with the ‘Figment of Imagination.’ This might be bad for the mental-wellbeing of a person, so led to believe. Notwithstanding, she may avert exploitative or environmental influences, but only to the extent that she endeavors to properly inform herself of this most important ‘Appellate Judicial Ruling.’ Given serious implications for; (i) ‘The ‘Institution’ of criminal prosecutions; and (ii) Undertaking or directing the undertaking of criminal prosecutions, no ’DPP’ that worths his/her ‘Salt- Sea or Epsom,’ could be internally or externally advised, or could be so daft, as to be seen as ignoring, or acting contrary to such ‘Judicial Ruling.’

BENEFIT OF KNOWLEDGE

For the ‘Benefit of Knowledge’ of ‘Acting DPP Shannon Jones Gittens; and Crown Counsels; ‘Rilys Adams and Rashida Jonas, and male counterparts, including Crown Counsel Dyer,’ it states;’ ‘I hold to be the duty of the Commissioner of Police to enforce the Law of the Land that citizens may go about their affairs in peace; …He is not the Servant of anyone;  …He must decide whether or not suspected persons are to be prosecuted …He is not the servant of anyone, including the DPP; …He is responsible to the Law, and the Law alone; Thus, ‘…No Minister of the Crown and no Police authority’ [R v Commissioner of the Metropolis, Raymond Blackburn ex p ‘[1968: QB 118: 136].  To be continued…  ***

Advertise with the mоѕt vіѕіtеd nеwѕ ѕіtе іn Antigua!
We offer fully customizable and flexible digital marketing packages.
Contact us at [email protected]