Don’t charge Rowley

Dr Keith Rowley will not be facing the courts. The Director of Public Prosecutions, Geoffrey Henderson, has decided that the Housing Minister will not be charged in the matter of the tearoom brawl. Rowley could have been liable to a maximum penalty of a $2,000 fine and 12 months imprisonment under the House of Representatives (Powers and Privileges) Act if convicted. The DPP’s decision follows Police investigations of the report by Opposition member Chandresh Sharma that Rowley assaulted him in the Parliament tearoom and hurled a teacup and remote control. The DPP sent his  seven-page memorandum to the Commissioner of Police, Trevor Paul, last Friday informing him that “I will not provide my consent as is required” by law to charge Rowley.
     
The prime reason given by Henderson was the ability of Parliament to regulate its own affairs. Noting that the matter had been referred to the Committee of Privileges by the complainant, Fyzabad MP Sharma, the DPP expressed a reluctance to derogate from Parliament the powers given to it under the Constitution to regulate its own affairs. Though, quoting Mays Parliamen-tary Practice, he did mention that it was not in all instances such acts would remain “within the exclusive cognisance of the House in which they are committed.” Said Henderson: “This is not to say that once the Committee of Privileges is seized of the matter, this can have the effect of ousting the jurisdiction of the Criminal Courts.” Nevertheless, he noted there was considerable precedent for his position —  that “Parliament possesses disciplinary powers over its members... and it is the availability and efficacy of these powers as an alternative to prosecution that I consider to be a compelling public interest factor against prosecution.”

Furthermore, the DPP stated, apart from the Eliot case ( involving an assault on the Speaker) which took place 350 years ago, “No charge against a Member (of Parliament) in respect of an allegedly criminal act in Parliament has been brought before the Courts.” He cited instances in the Commonwealth where similar matters were only referred to the Privileges Committee and no criminal proceedings instituted — a 1947 incident in the British parliament in which an MP exchanged blows with a member of the press gallery while the House was sitting; and the recent case in the Zimbabwe parliament where an opposition member was reported to have “floored and kicked” two cabinet ministers. The DPP, under whose tenure an assault charge was brought against Government Minister Edward Hart and another charge against San Fernando Mayor, Ian Atherly,  stressed that the court should only be used if there was no other remedy available. In the case of Hart, there was no alternative mechanism, he noted.

The DPP however conceded that the matter  passed the evidential test — that a prima facie case had been made out against Rowley, based on the statements of Chandresh Sharma, Dr Roodal Moonilal and Kelvin Ramnath. This, despite the fact that Rowley’s denial received “direct support” from Stanford Callender and “circumstantially” from Prabha Singh, the tearoom attendant. However, Henderson stated, the matter failed to satisfy certain  critical public interest criteria — the second stage in determining whether there should be a prosecution. The DPP  said there were some public interest factors operating in favour of proceeding with a prosecution. These included that the offence was committed against a person serving the public (ie a Member of Parliament); that the defendant was in a position of authority or trust (ie a Minister of Government) and the offence was motivated by any form of discrimination against the victim’s ethnic origin, sex, religious beliefs, political views etc. On this question of discrimination however the DPP pointed out that the alleged act was provoked as a consequence of the accusation that Rowley was a racist “as opposed to the assault itself being racially or politically motivated.”

Henderson however, believed that the public interest factors against prosecution were “compelling.” They were a) that the Court was likely to impose a nominal penalty; b) the loss or harm was minor and the result of a single incident and c) the availability and efficacy of an alternative to prosecution. He cited several authorities in support of this position including the Code for Crown Prosecutors, Statement of General Guide-lines for Prosecutors and Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, Australia. The DPP stated that he was aware that whatever decision was taken in this matter “may generate strong political sentiments on either side of the fence.” This was why, he said, he had set out how he had arrived at his decision and in particular  his observation that in matters involving the Parliament the  approach should be one of self-regulation.” Copies of the memorandum were sent to both Sharma and Rowley “for their necessary information.” The Committee of Privileges is investigating this matter.