DPP: Problem with files

IN THE current battle against crime, it is vital for the criminal justice system to operate with dispatch and efficiency, and certainly without undue and unnecessary hitches. In appreciation of this need, we have repeatedly over the years inveighed against the problems which retard the prompt administration of justice, among them being the piling up of matters, the repetitious adjournment of cases, the tardiness of judges to provide reasons for their decisions to the Appeal Court, and the failure to modernise the technical procedures used in our courts.

Now a different and quite serious problem affecting the system has been revealed by Director of Public Prosecutions Geoffrey Henderson who, to his credit, has taken expeditious action to remedy the situation. We refer to the DPP’s complaint that police officers take an inordinate amount of time to submit their files in high profile criminal matters, thus holding back the entire system. This delinquency, in our view, is intolerable. We can understand the motive of lawyers who deliberately prolong matters in the courts, but we find it outrageous for law enforcement officers to be so tardy in preparing and submitting files to the DPP after completing their investigations, compiling their evidence and laying the respective charges.

Are these officers not concerned with the swift administration of justice, particularly in major cases involving murder, serious acts of violence, robbery and corruption? The fact is that the DPP’s office cannot proceed with the prosecution of these matters, to begin with the preliminary inquiries, unless and until it receives the police investigator’s files containing all the relevant information including the statements of key witnesses, descriptive notes of interviews, diary extracts, post mortem reports and copies of the information. In some cases, these files can be quite bulky but if they are diligently compiled as the investigations proceed we are unable to see any serious reason why they cannot be completed in time to reach the DPP within at least a few weeks. Instead, we understand that the delays which Mr Henderson complains about are occurring in all the nine divisions of the Police Service.

It is an embarrassing absurdity for State Prosecutors to be appearing in court virtually empty handed and, therefore, unprepared to proceed with matters because they do not have the relevant police files. We have not heard from Acting Commissioner Trevor Paul, but we expect he will be investigating this situation and taking measures to ensure that these files are expeditiously submitted. At the very least, he must insist that officers comply with the guidelines now laid down by the DPP making it mandatory for investigating officers to submit full files of their matters within one month of the date of the relevant offences. Failing to meet this deadline, in our view, should incur some form of discipline.

We are concerned about this delinquency not simply because it presents an embarrassment to the DPP and his prosecutors, but also because it sets back the operation of the criminal justice system. This is so also because of the principle of “full disclosure” by which the prosecution must provide the defence, in advance of the trial, with details of all the evidence which will be produced against the accused. So delay in submitting files also affects the work of the defence, which adds to the problems of delivering justice — in the name of which we expect police officers to be more responsible.