EDITORIAL - Scrutinising the DPP

This newspaper holds in high regard the legal competence and integrity of the director of public prosecutions (DPP), Ms Paula Llewellyn, who, in the past, has made it clear that her office is not above public scrutiny and, if warranted, reproach.

It is in that context it may be useful for Ms Llewellyn to commission an audit into the timeliness with which her office renders its rulings, as well as reprise the short-lived arrangement, during the tenure of her predecessor, of the Office of the DPP making annual reports to Parliament on its activities.

It might also be worthwhile that the administration launch a public education campaign on the relative powers and responsibilities of the DPP and various state anti-corruption agencies, and for the heads of these institutions to agree to operational arrangements to enhance their effectiveness.

No single issue or incident has caused us to make these suggestions. But the immediate trigger is the current spat between Mr Terrence Williams, the head of the Independent Commission of Investigations (INDECOM), the newest of bodies concerned with misbehaviour by agents of the State, and Ms Llewellyn, about where either's power begins or ends.

Conflicting powers

INDECOM investigates complaints against members of the security forces, including whether they use excessive force in the conduct of their duties. The commission enjoys wide powers to proceed with its investigations. It is hoped that its efforts will help to rebuild public trust that complaints against the police, often accused of extra-judicial killings, will be fully and honestly investigated.

In that regard, last Friday's arrest of police Corporal Malica Reid on a charge of murder would have been perceived as a positive for the credibility of INDECOM. Cpl Reid was accused of fatally shooting popular Negril businessman Fredrick 'Mickey' Hill last November.

In comparison with the past, where such investigations were the prerogative of the police, the investigation of and charge against Cpl Reid was at whirlwind pace.

There is, however, a snag.

The Office of the DPP has complained that although the file on the Hill case was sent to her department, she had as yet made no ruling on it. The implication, it seems, is that a charge as serious as murder is entirely the province on the DPP, who is a creature entirely of the Constitution and is required to take direction from no one.

Indeed, the DPP has the power to intervene in, or to halt any criminal proceeding in Jamaica, which would give Ms Llewellyn a power superior to Mr Williams'. In fact, the DPP is one of the authorities to whom INDECOM can submit reports on its investigations.

Mr Williams, however, insists that he has the power to order an arrest, as his office did in Cpl Reid's case, and has said he will exercise the power again if the Office of the DPP does not deliver rulings "within a reasonable time".

There is, in Mr Williams' statement, echoes of past complaints by the contractor general, Greg Christie, about the slowness and, at times, inattention with which the DPP attends to matters referred to that office.

Recently, too, the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption complained that too few public servants who flout its regulations are brought before the courts by the DPP.

We know that Ms Llewellyn does not believe her office exists in isolation and is solely unaccountable. That is why she is likely to respond fully to these observations.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.