D-Day for DPP

The country is to know by July 31 whether an extension granted to the island’s chief prosecutor, Director of Public Prosecutions Paula Llewellyn, for her to remain in her post, was legal.

Double-murder convict Mervin Cameron, who filed a suit in February challenging the legality of the DPP’s extension, is contending that she has been acting in the post illegally for the past three years.

However, a Full Court panel of judges, which comprises Justices Lorna Shelly-Williams, Simone Wolfe-Reece and Andrea Pettigrew-Collins, is to deliver the ruling after hearing submissions in the Supreme Court yesterday.

Cameron, in his affidavit, alleges that the relevant authorities failed to follow the proper procedure provided for an extension being granted to the DPP, under the Constitution and the Interpretation Act, thereby rendering her appointment null and void.

According to Cameron, on his instruction, his attorney-at-law, Hugh Wildman, conducted an investigation into whether Llewellyn’s extension as DPP complied with the Constitution and laws of Jamaica, and checks revealed that her appointment had violated the laws.

Consequently, Cameron sought several declarations, including that the purported extension is illegal, null and void, and of no effect, that any purported appointment given to Llewellyn as the DPP after she has attained 60 years old is in breach of Section 96(1)(b) of the Constitution of Jamaica, rendering such appointment illegal null and void and of no effect.

Llewellyn was granted a three-year extension in July 2020. She was due to retire in September 2020 at age 60.

Prime Minister Andrew Holness, in announcing her extended tenure, had said that she performed well over her 12 years in office.

EXTENSION MUST BE GRANTED

But Wildman, during his submission yesterday, argued that the DPP’s extension was not in keeping with the requirements of Section 96 (1) of the Constitution.

He said a literal reading of the section stipulates that the DPP is to demit office by 60, but that an extension can be granted for her to remain for a specified period not exceeding 65.

He said, however, that the extension must be granted before she reaches 60 and that the governor general has the power to approve the extension following the recommendation of the prime minister after consultation with the opposition leader.

At the same time, he argued that it is critical that the extension be granted following an agreement by all four individuals.

However, he contended that in this case, there was no evidence of such an agreement and that the agreement was not reached before the DPP turned 60.

He pointed to the August 26 Gazette, which indicated that her extension would take effect on her birthday, September 21, 2020. This, he said, was a clear breach.

Additionally, he said a letter, which was written by the DPP and sent to the chairman of the Public Service Commission, although it does not qualify as a request for extension, should have been sent to the prime minister or the governor general as the PSC had nothing to do with granting an extension.

When questioned by Wolfe-Reece whether he was asking the court to find that there was no agreement, Wildman insisted that the Constitution had identified the four players and stated that there must be evidence of an agreement.

NO EVIDENCE OF AGREEMENT

Additionally, Wildman argued that the defendants’ reference to the DPP’s letter is an admission that there was no evidence of an agreement.

Shelly-Williams then asked if the Gazette was not an indication that there was an agreement. Wildman, in response, said the Gazette was not evidence of her appointment or an agreement, which the Constitution requires.

Furthermore, he said the letter from the governor general, which speaks to a letter received from the prime minister on July 7, was a “hearsay letter”.

“There is no question that the DPP was not properly appointed to continue in office beyond 60. The Constitution was not followed. Her appointment should not have taken place before she reached 60,” Wildman maintained.

“For the past three years, she would have been acting in that post illegally.”

Responding to his submission, attorney-at-law Kamau Ruddock, who represented the attorney general, argued that the DPP’s appointment was in compliance with the specified section of the Constitution.

She said it was clear that the governor general, on recommendation of the prime minister after consulting with the opposition leader, permitted the DPP to continue in office.

Furthermore, she said the “key” letter from the governor general, which advises that there was consultation between the prime minister and the opposition leader, demonstrated that the governor general acted on the recommendation of the prime minister in granting the extension.

Cameron was convicted in 2019 of the 2012 murder of 43-year-old Barrington Davis, then deputy chief for Jamaica Post, and his friend, Patricia Lamont-Barnswell.

They were abducted and fatally shot.

Cameron was sentenced to life imprisonment and ordered to serve 35 years before he can become eligible for parole.

He is, however, awaiting damages after he won a lawsuit against the State for breaching his constitutional rights to trial within a reasonable time.

Cameron, who was in custody for six years before his case was tried, wants $35 million in damages.

Attorney-at-law Duke Foote is also representing Cameron.

tanesha.mundle@gleanerjm.com