PantryOmar Anderson, Freelance Writer
THE JAMAICAN Bar Association (JBA) is describing the announcement of the probe into the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) as "unfortunate", but hopes that the results will be worthwhile.
"It is unfortunate that this is the route that has to be taken at this time," Hilary Phillips, president of the JBA told The Sunday Gleaner last Friday.
She said her organisation is, however, eagerly awaiting the results of the investigation.
Ms. Phillips added that the events occurring at the DPP's office is of interest to stakeholders in the justice system and that the association is concerned and "...hoping this investigation can bring about a reduction in the perceived differences in relations in that office."
A number of prominent lawyers have welcomed the probe, one of them saying it is "healthy" for the justice system. Last Thursday, the Public Service Commission said it had appointed retired High Commissioner to London, David Muirhead, Q.C., to head a special panel to probe the Office of the DPP because of "the undesirable level of negative media coverage in recent months, as well as the atmosphere which exists at present among the staff at the offices."
The negative media coverage include reports of a stand-off between the DPP, Kent Pantry, and Acting Senior Deputy DPP Paula Llewellyn, who has been acting in that position for a number of years without being appointed. Ms. Llewellyn has since written the Commission seeking redress. Other prosecutors also complained of acting in clear vacancies for more than a year but have not been appointed. Mr. Pantry, who has been DPP since November 10, 1998, is arguing an appeal before the Privy Council in London.
Check on sweeping powers
Among the lawyers welcoming the probe is Patrick Bailey, who said he hopes it will be able to determine whether there is a personality problem at the DPP's office. In addition, he hopes it will uncover whether there is a problem with professional judgment, or whether there are allegations that the DPP's office has abused its powers resulting in injustice to accused persons.
"I have not had the opportunity to research all the constitutional niceties about the procedure of the review; however, it is my view that the DPP should support the probe and make himself and his office available," he said.
Attorney-at-law Jacqueline Samuels-Brown said the probe should not be viewed as an isolated case, but a continuation of recent public scrutiny into aspects of the legal system.
"No harm can come of it assuming it is done in a responsible manner," she told The Sunday Gleaner. "The DPP's office wields such power and responsibility that it should not be immune from scrutiny by the public or on behalf of the public."
Mrs. Samuels-Brown added that any investigation into the operation of the DPP's office should be regarded as "healthy" for the justice system.
"It is really a healthy thing when we are in changed times, when public institutions are more accountable to the public," she said.
Earlier this year, sources told The Sunday Gleaner that in a bid to defuse tension at the DPP's office, Ms. Phillips, along with President of the Court of Appeal Justice, Ian Forte, and attorney-at-law Dennis Morrison, Q.C, met with Mr. Pantry and some of his aggrieved staff.
The JBA president said she was unable to divulge details of what happened at the meeting as the discussions were "high-level" and "confidential". She said, however, that the meeting was held "to try to see what could be done to avert this (probe)."
Conflict continues
But, since the three legal heavyweights met with Mr. Pantry and his staff earlier this year, the relationship between him and his staff has still not improved, The Sunday Gleaner was informed.
Up to two weeks ago, prosecutors at the office were up in arms regarding appointments. In a bid to get their grouses pacified, the prosecutors, at a meeting at Breezes Runaway Bay, St. Ann, discussed their lack of appointments and other problems with Carol Palmer, Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Justice, who promised that a Commission would soon be appointed to look into the matter.
The Office of the DPP was established under the Jamaica (Constitution) Order in Council 1962, and it is the first time that an investigation is being initiated to probe the management of that department which now has a staff of 53 including 32 prosecutors.
News of the probe follows Wednesday's call by the Farquharson Institute of Public Affairs (FIPA), urging the Government to launch an enquiry into the general administration of justice and performance of the DPP's office.
In his letter, FIPA's chairman, attorney-at-law Frank Phipps, Q.C., cited "endemic delays in the court", "the ugly internecine struggle and rivalry in the legal services, and the performance of the office of the DPP", which he said were of immediate and pressing concerns.
Nearly two months ago, Senator Bruce Golding, an advocate for constitutional reform, at a meeting organised by Jamaicans For Justice (JFJ) in St. Andrew, recommended sweeping changes to the Office of the DPP.
Contacted last week for comments on the unfolding events at the DPP's office, he said the DPP's excessive power and his failure to report to Parliament had been discussed earlier last week, before the FIPA wrote Mr. Patterson requesting changes to the Office of the DPP.
But, while recognising that the DPP ought not to be fettered in the execution of his duty, Senator Golding said that the DPP, by virtue of the power vested in him, should not be allowed to execute his functions without being accountable.
But he lashed the Public Service Commission for being tardy in settling the row between Mr. Pantry and his staff.
"I think they have been too passive," he said. "They have the constitutional duty in the appointing of public officers, and to do so in the best interest of the country. They have been inert in dealing with the problems at the DPP's office."
Contacted about the accusation, Charles Jones, chief personnel officer at the Office of the Services Commission, refused to comment.
