Llewellyn defends pace of rulings from her office

Published: Friday | December 13, 2013 Comments 0

Edmond Campbell, Senior Staff Reporter

DIRECTOR OF Public Prosecutions (DPP) Paula Llewellyn has hit back at claims that her office has been moving at a snail's pace in making rulings on cases referred to it by the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption.

The DPP argued that the delays "must be placed and understood within the context of the no-delegable responsibilities, realities and challenges of her office".

While acknowledging that several matters from the commission remained outstanding, Llewellyn said the pace of rulings on these matters was hampered by the "heavy numerical and arithmetic content" which spanned years of examination of income versus expenditure.

The DPP said in-house training has been conducted to speed up the rulings on cases from the commission.

She explained that a meeting was held between members of the Corruption Prevention Unit of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and financial investigators from the commission where it was decided that executive summaries would be submitted to her department to facilitate the process of ruling given the specific nature of the charge.

The DPP pointed out that her department had to charge for a "precise figure of income that is unaccounted for in each year, on each statutory declaration, and after presentation of additional records and or evidence at an enquiry".

SUMMARIES OUTSTANDING

Llewellyn said that, to date, her office had not received the executive summaries.

She said it was unfortunate that a Sunday Gleaner story did not state that the executive summaries which were needed to expedite the process in ruling on these files were not submitted as was agreed by the commission.

It was reported in The Sunday Gleaner that the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption had expressed concern about long delays in rulings by the DPP.

David Grey, the secretary/manager to the commission, had said the concern was in relation to the time frame in which rulings were made. He noted that the backlog in rulings dates back several years.

Share |

The comments on this page do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner.
The Gleaner reserves the right not to publish comments that may be deemed libelous, derogatory or indecent. Please keep comments short and precise. A maximum of 8 sentences should be the target. Longer responses/comments should be sent to "Letters of the Editor" using the feedback form provided.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Top Jobs

View all Jobs

Videos