Pantry

Former Director of Public Prosecutions Kent Pantry on Wednesday rubbished the logic of arguments in some quarters that evidence from absent witnesses should not be admissible in court.

Section 31D of the Evidence Act provides for statements of absent witnesses to be used in certain circumstances. While acknowledging the authenticity crisis arising from the case of Constable Carey Lyn Sue, who was sentenced this year for fabricating evidence in a murder trial, Pantry said the proposition that absentee evidence not be recognised was based on a non sequitur.

"The argument, as I understand it, is that the police have been providing non-existent absent witnesses, so the legislation should be abolished," Pantry said at the launch of Future Services International, Jamaica's first legal funding and litigant support company.

Truthful evidence

He added: "Such reasoning is faulty, since even witnesses who are produced may not give truthful evidence."

Pantry noted that systemic failure or success was dependent on the human element.

"If you get 20 persons to guard a house and they steal from the house, you should not say you should not guard the house. What you need to do is provide honest guards," Pantry said.

He continued: "It would be the same if you say, because a witness did not speak the truth, you abolish the use of witnesses, and if the police provided a statement from a non-existent witness, you abolish the provisions of the Evidence Act. This clearly would not follow."