Outdated prosecution

YESTERDAY we commented on the important role of the Legal Aid Authority in keeping the scales of justice well balanced. Not only the rich should be assured that they can obtain fair treatment in our courts by their ability to engage able counsel to represent them. Those who cannot afford such attorneys should not be made to suffer from such a disadvantage, especially if they are charged with capital offences. The LAA serves to eliminate that inequity by assigning experienced and competent lawyers to defend accused persons in that category, thus preserving their constitutional right to a fair trial.

In another section of our paper yesterday, attorney Subhas Panday, MP for Princes Town, raised a point that deals with the other side of this issue. He called on the Government to replace police officers prosecuting in the magistrates’ courts with professional practitioners, a move which, he says, would free up 300 to 400 officers for policing duties. We would dispute Mr Panday’s figures, but that is not the point of this editorial. The fact is that Chief Justice Sat Sharma, in opening the new law term recently, had said that the time had long since come for prosecuting counsel from the Director of Prosecutions’s office to represent the State in all criminal prosecutions at all levels. We tend to agree. While the operations of our courts would continue to need the service of officers of the Court and Process Branch — and, therefore, not as many as 300 to 400 would be freed up — the practice of policemen performing the function of prosecutors has become an anachronism that denies the State of proper representation. According to Mr Sharma, very few jurisdictions in the Commonwealth retain this system which has outlived its usefulness. “Even in simple summary matters before the magistrates’ courts, defendants are legally represented,” he said. “The principles of disclosure are as important in those simple matters as they are in more complex ones.” The Chief Justice agrees that it would take “a substantial infusion of staff” into the DPP’s office to replace prosecuting policemen with State lawyers but, he adds, “this must be done if the prosecutorial arm is to perform at its maximum potential and thus fulfil its lofty constitutional mandate.”

The fact is that police officers, from sergeants to constables, assigned to prosecute in our courts have no legal training and are no match for professional attorneys, especially when disputes over points of law arise. Indeed, when faced with such legal issues they are invariably forced to seek adjournments in order to obtain assistance from officers of the DPP’s department. This matter, however, becomes quite difficult when we consider the unfortunate situation of the DPP’s office which is not only understaffed but where State attorneys are also underpaid and overworked. If, as the CJ has also pointed out, this department is unable to provide the quality of State attorneys required to deal adequately with matters in the High Court, how can it possibly satisfy the prosecutorial needs of the magistracy where perhaps more than 40 attorneys would be required? Still, as we said before, the scales of justice should always be fairly balanced; in other words both the State and the accused should be adequately represented. It is time, then, for the Government to take a serious look at the problems facing the administration of justice in our country to ensure that the scales do not tip in favour of one side or the other.