Coconut bat at Lords

THE FACT that guilty persons are being acquitted in our courts because of the inexperience of prosecuting counsel is, in our view, a matter that calls for urgent attention. That is why we expect the Government to respond positively to the appeal made by Chief Justice Sat Sharma yesterday “to come to the rescue of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, which remains very much at the forefront of the assault on crime.” In his address at the opening of the new Law Term, Mr Sharma dealt with the many problems affecting the Judiciary and his prescriptions for dealing with them. However, in the context of the country’s battle against crime, we believe the case he makes out for upgrading the quality of State Counsel attached to the DPP’s Department demands the highest priority.

The fact is that the department, responsible for prosecutions in our courts, has been seriously weakened over the last few years by an exodus of top-flight officers including former DPP Mark Mohammed, now a High Court judge; Rangee Dolsingh SC, ex-Deputy DPP, Indra Ramoutar-Liverpool, former Assistant DPP and Gillian Lucky, former Senior State Counsel who have all returned to private practice and Anthony Carmona who took up a post at the Hague. In our view, no department of government could suffer such haemorrhaging at the top and not lose its effectiveness. It must be troubling to realise that at present the DPP’s office has only three senior officers on its staff, namely the DPP Geoffrey Henderson himself, Deputy Carla Browne Antoine and Assistant DPP Devan Rampersad. The others are juniors with relatively limited experience.

In referring to this situation, CJ Sharma says, “It is crucial that there be a sufficient cadre of experienced and skilled prosecutors to handle the more serious criminal prosecutions before the Magistrates’ Court and the Assize Courts. In many serious and complex criminal matters the accused is represented by Senior Counsel. The State, on the other hand, is frequently unable to match with counsel of even roughly equivalent forensic skill.” The Chief Justice pointed out that, while he had the greatest admiration for the manner in which State Prosecutors undertook their responsibilities, at the end of the day there is really no substitute for experienced counsel. To illustrate his point, Mr Sharma used a sporting metaphor: “You cannot send a batsman with a coconut bat to open the innings at Lords.”

To extend the CJ’s metaphor, the DPP’s office cannot afford to be making ducks by sending inexperienced “batsmen” to face the bowling from senior counsel hired by accused persons. In our view, this would be presenting criminals with an intolerable advantage and the fact that guilty persons are being acquitted because of this paucity of legal and forensic skill in the DPP’s office is a situation that must not be tolerated. We agree with Mr Sharma that the Executive has a duty, indeed a responsibility to ensure that the DPP’s office is properly staffed and its officers appropriately remunerated to attract lawyers of the highest quality.