Jamaica Gleaner - DPP and the wiretapping - Sunday

Sunday | August 19, 2001

Home Page
Lead Stories
News
Business
Sport
Commentary
Letters
Entertainment
Arts &Leisure
Outlook

E-Financial Gleaner

Subscribe
Classifieds
Guest Book
Submit Letter
The Gleaner Co.
Advertising
Search

<a target="_top" href="http://adex3.flycast.com/server/socket/127.0.0.1:2800/click/GoJamaica/News/123" align="center"><img src="http://adex3.flycast.com/server/socket/127.0.0.1:2800/img/GoJamaica/News/123" border="0" width="468" height="60"></a>

DPP and the wiretapping

THE EDITOR, Sir:

I WRITE regarding the ruling by the DPP, Kent Pantry, Q.C., in the wiretapping case. After careful consideration of his ruling as published in the press, I have certain concerns:-

1. Did the investigation by the CIB reveal the nature and extent of the interference by DCP Clunie with the informant? As far as can be observed this question was not satisfactorily addressed by Mr. Pantry's ruling. Instead, the public was left with vagaries and innuendoes inputting impropriety on the part of DCP Clunie.

If it is a fact that DCP Clunie's interference with the informant was calculated to pervert the course of justice, then the DPP should say so. In which event one would expect he would rule that a charge of conspiracy or attempt to pervert the course of justice would be preferred, but as it now stands, the matter is left hanging for everyone to speculate as to what precisely took place.

This is highly unsatisfactory.

2. Was any consideration given to the contents of the tapes - the subject of the wiretapping? It would not appear so. The public is only too aware of the grave allegations surrounding the tapes. Allegations which went all the way to Cabinet, yet not one word from the DPP as to how this matter was treated by him.

Again this is another matter left hanging.

3. The DPP makes reference to the fact that in the "Knowles case" there may be evidence implicating personnel of the JCF. One must ask the question, is it a fact that such evidence exists? If so, is Mr. Pantry privy to such evidence? Is it reasonable to presume that with the facilities afforded Mr. Pantry that he would have been made aware of the precise nature of such evidence. Assuming that is the case, why then did not Mr. Pantry pursue that aspect of the investigation with a view of preferring the appropriate charges against these members of the JCF implicated by such evidence?

What has really happened is that once again we see important issues being disregarded in the pursuit of trivia. That it seems to be is the sum total of Mr. Pantry's ruling.

I am, etc.,

VOX POPULI

Rockhall

Back to Letters