Law Association statement

The Council wishes to make it clear that its concerns have nothing to do with the merits of the case or with the persons involved but rather with the rule of law and the abuse of power. The Council is of the view that where a judge makes an order, the purpose of which is to prohibit a certain course of action, it is unlawful and constitutes an undermining of the administration of justice for anyone to take any step, the effect of which is deliberately to frustrate and/or circumvent that purpose. The Council understands that the purpose of the court order of Madam Justice Jones was to prohibit the implementation of any decision to institute criminal proceedings against the Chief Justice pending the hearing and determination of the matter before her. It is a contempt of court for a third party wilfully to interfere with the administration of justice by thwarting the achievement of the purpose of a court order made in particular proceedings: See Attorney General v Punch Ltd and another (2002) UKHL 50.

The Council is alarmed by the statement of the Commissioner of Police where he unhesitatingly declared “My officers did not break down the door as will normally occur” (emphasis ours). The Council regards it as a frightening state of affairs for the Commissioner of Police to hold and express the view that police officers breaking down doors is a normal and acceptable occurrence.

The Commissioner of Police further stated “In my forty years as a police officer, I have never known of any process which could have had the effect of halting or interfering with a Police Prosecution (sic) except for discontinuance by the Director of Public Prosecution (sic) after charges were laid.” It is an understatement to say that this pronouncement of the Commissioner is unfortunate. In fact it is designed to and does question the decision of the Court which is a matter for judicial determination rather than a public statement by even a police officer of 40 years standing.

Finally, it is unfortunate that the police elected to proceed by way of warrant instead of a summons in this case. There are several recent examples where a summons was used to bring persons before the court without arrest, such as former ministers of government and other persons where there was no flight risk.

Order of the Council

Patricia Dindyal

Honorary Secretary Dated the 16th day of July, 2006