DPP’s letter to service commission was not about seeking job extension, argues her attorney

The lawyer representing Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Paula Llewellyn says her letter to the Public Service Commission was never about seeking an extension of her time in office and that it would have been unbelievable for her to do so.

“I wish to clarify that there is a misconception surrounding the letter of the DPP, this was the trigger for what I called an unfortunate stream of events and what I want to say is that the DPP's letter was sadly misconstrued. The DPP has over 40 years in the public service and 16 years as DPP, so against that backdrop the letter was not written lightly,” Kings Counsel Douglas Leys said in the Court of Appeal this morning.

“It did not seek an extension, what the letter did was to confine itself within the confines of the statute, which was elect to continue,” he added.

According to him, the letter was specifically for administrative purposes and to establish a paper trail, so that there would be no break in the DPP's salary payment, when her extension ended in September 2023.

Leys made the admission while arguing that the Full Court, in striking down section 2(2) of the amendment to the Constitution which had displaced the DPP from office, conflated the two provisions of the amendment by incorporating extension into retirement.

He said the first provision, section 2 (1), was to increase the retirement age of the DPP and the auditor general from 60 to 65 and the second one was to preserve her right to an early retirement.

“Why we say that it was conflated, I suppose the court took into account the letter and says she is really asking for an extension and a power to determine that she would continue in office and that was never the intention, certainly of the DPP, an officer of over 40 years of service and who has benefitted previously from one extension and knows that the final extension, we would have to say it would be incredulous, unbelievable for her to be asking for another extension,” he said before he was interrupted by lead judge, Justice Jennifer Straw, who reminded him that he cannot speak on the inner thought of his client.

Leys, in the meantime, asked the three-judge panel to accept that the 2017 amended to the Pension Act had specifically deprived the DPP of the right to early retirement, which resulted in Parliament amending the Constitution to reinstate that right, as the DPP and the Auditor General are creatures of the law.

He maintained that there were no other provisions in law which gave her that right and that Parliament had to ensure that the right was preserved to avoid breaching section 95 of the Constitution which stipulates that there should be no alteration of the terms and conditions of the DPP while she is in office.

At the same time, he agreed with the Attorney General that the DPP by virtue of the amendment was not required to do anything including sending the letter.

The DPP reached the retirement age of 60 in 2020 but got a three-year extension which ended in September 2023.

She was on a second extension when Opposition Member of Parliament Phillip Paulwell and Senator Peter Bunting challenged the amendment to the Constitution.

They sought a declaration that Llewellyn should not remain in office beyond September last year when her extension ended and were successful.

Following the ruling, Llewellyn stepped aside to await the outcome of the appeal brought by the Government.

- Tanesha Mundle

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.