Constitutional Court ruling does not affect decisions made by DPP while in office, says attorney

Cases in which Director of Public Prosecutions Paula Llewellyn KC ruled on or prosecuted during the time she was in office when she got the second extension cannot be declared to be invalid under the Constitution.

The Constitutional Court ruled today that an extension which was granted to her following an amendment to the Constitution last year was unconstitutional.

King's Counsel Michael Hylton, who represented the claimants, explained that Llewellyn will have to leave office immediately based on the declaration granted.

“You cannot get a stay of a declaration when the court says the law is bad,” Hylton argued.

Speaking on the matter of cases handling by the DPP, senior attorney-at-law Bert Samuels told The Gleaner that there is a legal provision which states that acts done by the holder of an office who is subsequently declared not to occupy this office can be said to be more the less valid.

“If this provision were not in place then the administration of justice could become a standstill,” Samuels explained.

Section 96 (2) of the Constitution states that “nothing done by the Director of Public Prosecutions shall be invalid by reason only that he has attained the age at which he is required by this section to vacate his office.”

Reacting to today's ruling, Samuels said; “It is unfortunate that the DPP's tenure has come to this and that those who sought to give her a second extension must be embarrassed by it being struck down. This opens the door for younger and capable hands at the Office of the DPP to now enjoy upward mobility.
“There are times when the old guard should step aside graciously,” Samuels emphasised.

Opposition lawmakers Phillip Paulwell and Peter Bunting filed a lawsuit last year challenging the move by the government to pass a bill that July extending the retirement ages of the Auditor General and the DPP from age 60 to 65 and a possible extension to 70.

They contended that the extension was enacted for an improper purpose and was therefore inconsistent with the Constitution, null and void.

The DPP, on reaching the retirement age of 60 in September 2020, was given a three-year-extension on the job.

The DPP's tenure should have ended in September last year, but under the new amendment to the Constitution, she was given two extra years to remain in office.

The claimants had sought a declaration that the DPP should not be allowed to remain in office beyond September last year when her extension ended and they were successful.

- Barbara Gayle

Follow The Gleaner on X, formerly Twitter, and Instagram @JamaicaGleaner and on Facebook @GleanerJamaica. Send us a message on WhatsApp at 1-876-499-0169 or email us at onlinefeedback@gleanerjm.com or editors@gleanerjm.com.