Legal wrangling begins in DPP’s Judicial Review hearing

The first day of the judicial review hearing into the case of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) against the Senior Resident Magistrate for the Corporate Area began at the Supreme Court Monday.

The DPP brought the action arising out of the corruption trial of former Junior Minister for Energy, Kern Spencer.

DPP Paula Llewellyn claims Senior Magistrate Judith Pusey ordered her to give a statement about meetings with accused-turned star witness Rodney Chin, and has asked the court to quash the order.

The issue of the DPP's right to bring an action for judicial review against a Magistrate is a critical one.

If the point is decided against the DPP, the case will end there.

Justice Managatal pointed out in court Monday, for example, that judicial review usually protects citizens seeking redress against the state, as opposed to being used by one arm of the state against another arm of the state, as is the case here.   

Deupty Director of Public Prosecutions Dianne Gordon Harrison maintained in her submissions that judicial review is available to any person wishing to challenge the decision of a bench of magistrates.

Part 56 of the Civil Procedure Rules which govern the operation of the Supreme Court, states that an application for judicial review may be brought by any person with sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application.

One of the questions vented on Monday was whether the DPP in her official capacity would qualify.

And it was heavy going for Mrs. Gordon Harrison with her submissions that ordering the DPP to make a statement breached s. 94 (6) of the constitution which states that the DPP in the exercise of her powers, shall not be subject to the direction or control of any other person or authority.

She submitted that the DPP was exercising her power under section 94 (3) (c) to discontinue criminal proceedings.  

But Justice Hibbert questioned how the DPP's power could have been interfered with when the DPP had already exercised the power in question by discontinuing the case against Mr. Chin months before the magistrate made the order in question.

The case continues Tuesday.