How the DPP's office handled Hibbert's case

Today we bring an excerpted version of the Director of Public Prosecutions Paula Llewellyn's statement on her office's handling of the Mabey & Johnson/former junior minister, Joseph Hibbert matter.

Llewellyn is facing public criticism over the perception that she made inconsistent statements about whether she had requested evidence in the United Kingdom (UK) that could bolster the probe, which was triggered by allegations raised by UK based-bridge building firm Mabey & Johnson that Hibbert had accepted £100,000 to help them win government contracts valued at millions of dollars.

Chronology of events

1. FOLLOWING A referral from the Office of the Contractor General (OCG) pertaining to allegations of corruption and irregularity that are related to certain Government of Jamaica bridge-building contracts that were awarded to the British firm of Mabey & Johnson Limited, the matter was examined and findings were published.

2. In March 2010, after perusing the documents from the OCG, I was satisfied that there was sufficient compelling material to be referred to the commissioner of police and his assigned investigators for further enquiries to be made in respect of the alleged actions of Mr Joseph Hibbert and any other possible persons of interest, as yet unknown, for the purpose of possible criminal prosecution. The line of enquiry to be pursued by the police would surround possible breaches between 2000 and 2003 of section 14 (1) (b) of the Corruption Prevention Act 2000 (which repealed the previous Corruption Prevention Act) and the possible commission of a common law conspiracy.

3. The central authority of the United Kingdom in England made a request under the Mutual Assistance Scheme to us to apply for a search warrant of Mr Hibbert's premises pertaining to the Mabey & Johnson matter, which was being investigated by the Serious Fraud Office.

4. These requests are handled by our 15-member unit, which is headed by Mrs Caroline Hay, senior deputy director of public prosecutions. A member of that unit was expressly assigned to work on the file under the supervision of Mrs Hay. The application for the search warrant was processed and I signed the necessary authorisation for the application to be made in court. The order for the search warrant was obtained and executed on Mr Hibbert's premises. Material was procured and sent back to England.

5. Subsequently, sometime in 2010 a request for assistance in the Joseph Hibbert matter was received from the JCF investigators by this office in its role as the designated central authority.

6. An attorney from the Mutual Assistance Unit was assigned to work on the matter with Mrs Hay. A first draft of the request was prepared and clarification was sought from the police investigators in respect of the exact charges that were being investigated in relation to Mr Hibbert. Communications to the police were provided orally.

7. Correspondence was sent on January 4, 2011, as well as telephone calls made to the police seeking confirmation of the charges. This was subsequently received, albeit orally.

8. In March of 2011, Mrs Caroline Hay travelled to England to have professional consultations with the central authority in relation to shared issues under the Mutual Assistance Scheme. She took with her draft documents/draft copy and other documents of the request in respect of the Joseph Hibbert matter. She met with the relevant officials, as well as investigators in the office of the Central Authority and, along with officials, discussed the status of the request and possible approaches which were at the time in our purview.

9. On her return to Jamaica, Mrs Hay and the assigned officer in the Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) unit reviewed the draft request, as well as all the material in our possession. The draft was further amended with specific focus on particular individuals identified by the police as relevant to their investigations. On careful review of all material in our possession, and mindful of the discussions held in the United Kingdom, it was determined that further material was needed to justify exploration into privately held data of the persons named. It was on this basis that the ODPP, as the central authority, recommenced telephone contact with the police investigators.

10. In those telephone conversations, the assigned officer from the MLA unit set out what further material was necessary to ground critical aspects of the request. (The ODPP will not go into greater detail in respect of the content of the critical aspects as this is still a continuing investigation we will not take any step to undermine this investigation.)

11. When the written response was not forthcoming from the police, we reduced our request to writing by letter dated July 27, 2011, where the reason for the need for this further information was specifically explained.

12. Having received no written response from the police investigators, Mrs Hay who was at that time acting as DPP, contacted Mr Les Green, former assistant commissioner of police, attaching a scanned copy letter dated July 27, 2011, to the police. Mr Green responded by email later that day, indicating that he would speak to the police in the matter.

13. To date we have received no response to this letter nor have we received the additional material requested. The request remains incomplete and has not been dispatched to the UK authorities for processing.

14. The ODPP, acting under the portfolio of the central authority, has received commendation time again for our thoroughness and attention to detail in the processing of requests under the Mutual Assistance Criminal Matters Act. We approach all matters with the same level of objectivity and professionalism. The nature of these requests oblige us to treat all of them as being very urgent and confidential. So as soon as the material requested is made available to us by the local investigators, we will complete the request and forward all of the material to the English central authority.

For the avoidance of all doubt, let me make it clear, that at no time in this issue, did I make any inconsistent statement to any reporter in relation to this matter. In answer to a question posed by a journalist who said, "did the request go off." I replied "the request has gone off", but I did not elaborate on the context or the circumstances of the document going to England. My reticence to go further hinged on the fact that the entire scenario is confidential and the information relating to Mrs Hay's visit to England with the draft request was even more confidential and not information which, at that time, could appropriately be put in the public domain. It is unfortunate that some elements of the media have seized upon that to assail the ODPP. We stand on our record of high-quality professionalism and integrity, and will not be distracted in any way from doing our duty without fear or favour in the public interest.