THE EDITOR, Sir:
THE UK Privy Council's quashing the fraud conviction of a Caymanian man has prompted me to make my laymen feelings public.
In overturning the appellant conviction the Privy Council commented that the conduct and comments of the prosecutor persistently and grossly departed from good practice, so that the appellant's right to a fair trial was breached. The Privy Council also commented that "the duty of a prosecuting counsel is not to obtain a conviction at all cost, but to act as a minister of justice."
From the examples of comments made by the prosecuting counsel set out in the newspaper, it appears to me as being sharply critical of the accused's character, and sarcastic sometimes, but hardly the reasons to overturn a four and a half year conviction and US$500,000 compensation award.
I always thought that it's the duty of the prosecuting counsel to get a conviction at all cost legally allowed, and the defence counsel to get an acquital likewise.
The fact that the appellant was represented by counsel who didn't object to the line of cross-examination that the Privy Council found gross and prejudicial makes their reason for overturning the conviction even more flawed.
From this case, is the Privy Council stating that a weak defence counsel being overmatched with a sharp-tongued prosecutor is ground for finding an accused not guilty however overwhelming the evidence of guilt is?
If this is the case it would appear as if the Privy Council is more biased towards allowing appeals by criminals not only in murder cases but even fraud cases.
Mr. Editor, it would be good if an eminent attorney could look at the entire judgement in this case and give comments on the ruling, so that lay persons like myself can make an intelligent decision if the Privy Council issue ever goes to a referendum.
I am, etc.,
AINSWORTH DICK
Kingston 5
