DPP secures guilty plea in pollution case

The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) has secured a guilty plea from Azuri Chemicals Limited in an environmental pollution case, months after stripping the National Environment and Planning Agency (NEPA) of its authority to independently prosecute such matters.

On May 9, obtained the plea from Azuri Chemicals Limited, one of seven cases previously handled under a general fiat granted to NEPA to undertake the prosecution.

The shift follows intense criticism of NEPA’s controversial handling of the 2023 Trade Winds Citrus case, which stemmed from a Rio Cobre oil spill, and charges were ended in a confidential settlement instead of a court ruling.

Director of Public Prosecutions Paula Llewellyn suggested that Trade Winds Citrus Limited ought to have pleaded guilty in its high-profile environmental breach case, which she contended was wrongfully disposed of last year.

Llewellyn also raised questions about the actions of the presiding judge and the parish court clerk in managing the case.

“It would have been more in keeping with good prosecutorial practice in the public interest, based on the circumstances of this case, for there to have been accountability via a plea of guilty by the company,” Llewellyn said in a May 9 statement. She said remedial efforts made by the juice-making company could have been addressed during sentencing.

The company had faced charges under the Wildlife Protection Act for the oil discharge. However, on November 27, 2024, a NEPA legal officer entered no evidence in court, citing a confidential settlement agreement. This led to the St Catherine Parish Court formally acquitting Trade Winds – making retrial legally impossible.

“It was even more unfortunate that the court and the clerk of the court did not scrutinise/interrogate the matter more fulsomely or, at the very least, allow some time for the ODPP to intervene,” Llewellyn said.

MISTAKEN

Llewellyn said the judge mistakenly concluded that she lacked authority to view the agreement, even though the court had authorised the mediation process. She criticised the use of a non-disclosure clause, saying such secrecy undermines public confidence and has no place in criminal proceedings.

The controversy first broke in November 2024, when the judge discontinued the case after learning of the agreement, which had not been shared with the court or the DPP.

Public outrage followed, triggering the resignation of NRCA Chairman Weldon Maddan and government condemnation over the lack of transparency.

NEPA’s settlement released Trade Winds from future legal claims, citing that the company had already spent more on cleanup than it would have been fined under outdated environmental laws.

But Llewellyn insisted that was no excuse for sidestepping the legal process.

“A formal plea negotiation … subject to the approval of the judge … and made public through the court” would have been the appropriate approach, she said.

She emphasised that discontinuing a case of high public interest without explanation violates prosecutorial best practices.

NEPA’s own investigations confirmed petroleum discharge into the Rio Cobre, though Trade Winds took steps to contain it. Llewellyn said such efforts, while commendable, should have been considered as mitigation – not absolution.

Responding to questions about why only the company was charged, not its directors, Llewellyn explained there was no legal basis to go beyond the corporate veil. No evidence pointed to individual negligence or intent by company executives.

Following the fallout, the ODPP revoked NEPA’s prosecutorial powers and took control of its seven pending environmental cases. These are now being handled by an assistant DPP and two assigned Crown counsel.

In the Azuri Chemicals case, the company was charged under Section 9(2) of the Natural Resources Conservation Authority Act for developing a facility to store hazardous materials without the required permit. The company pleaded guilty and was fined $50,000 – the maximum under the law at the time. Although the Government increased the penalty last year to $5 million or five years’ imprisonment, the change is not retroactive.

REFORMS PROPOSED

The ODPP has since proposed several reforms: formal training for NEPA’s legal team, secondments to the ODPP, and greater involvement of the police in environmental investigations. NEPA, in a March 10 letter, accepted the recommendations and agreed to draft a memorandum of understanding to formalise cooperation.

NEPA, in a March 10 letter, acknowledged the ODPP’s findings and committed to implementing the recommendations, including the drafting of a memorandum of understanding to formalise its relationship with the prosecution office.

“The ODPP will continue to extend professional courtesies to NEPA/NRCA with a view of strengthening their enforcement capacity,” Llewellyn said, expressing hope that the reforms will rebuild public trust and ensure environmental offences are handled with the seriousness they deserve.

Earlier this year, responding to Sunday Gleaner questions, the Court Administration Division (CAD) defended the judge’s actions in the Trade Winds case, saying the court had no authority to examine the confidential mediation agreement, which had not been submitted in open court. CAD explained that while the judge may review non-confidential agreements, confidentiality clauses legally limit judicial scrutiny – unlike plea bargains, which require active judicial oversight.

The Trade Winds fallout prompted harsh criticism from advocacy groups. The Jamaica Environment Trust condemned the handling of the case, while attorney Marcus Goffe, representing over 200 affected fisherfolk and residents, called the outcome “worse than anticipated”. He accused the NRCA of betraying the public interest by abandoning the prosecution.

editorial@gleanerjm.com