Man charged seven years after fatal crash, Crown lashed

A lawyer lambasted the Crown’s “dismissive and flippant attitude” in a case where a man was charged almost seven years after a road accident claimed an elderly man’s life, a court heard Thursday.

And the Crown’s early absence in a constitutional lawsuit seemingly compounded Queen’s Counsel Larry Smith’s arguments in the case in which he is representing Preston Parris along with attorneys Jamila Smith and Jeriah Rock.

Thursday’s virtual hearing was scheduled to start at 10 a.m. before Justice Shona Griffith but was delayed to await a member of either the Director of Public Prosecutions Office or the Solicitor General’s Chambers. Principal Crown Counsel Marsha Lougheed eventually joined around noon.

According to the court, the constitutional case was filed on November 6, 2020 and acknowledgement of that affidavit was filed by the DPP’s office on November 18, last year. The first hearing was set on February 12, and then, according to the judge, “no officer of the Crown was present”.

The judge then ordered that submissions by the two sides be filed and exchanged by April 1 with a further hearing set for Thursday.

The high court judge said it was not ideal to proceed in the absence of a party in proceedings “but that is in a situation where counsel has been before the court and the court ascertains that there must be a good reason. The court would give a courteous call… out of necessity to ascertain where is counsel, what is going on?”

Smith recalled Parris’ road accident that occurred in 2010 in which Errol Briggs was killed. Statements were given by Parris and other witnesses with the last taken in February 2011.

Then last November, Parris’s senior attorney sent a request to the Crown asking for the case to be revisited given the evidence contained in a report by an accident reconstructionist. That evidence, according to Smith, “exonerates any criminal culpability of the claimant in this matter”.

He revealed that the reconstructionist’s report said Parris “bears no culpability in the matter, that the accident, tragic as it is, was entirely the fault of the deceased… The deceased caused his death by not exercising enough care when crossing this section of the Spring Garden Highway on an 80-kilometre stretch of road”.

Some of the witness statements also pointed to Briggs’ culpability, the lawyer stated.

Parris, he said gave his statement in July 2010 and six years and ten months later he was asked to visit the Black Rock Police Station.

He was subsequently charged with death by dangerous driving, a different offence to that which he was initially told he could be prosecuted for in 2010. Initially, the potential charge was driving without due care or consideration or driving without reasonable consideration for others using the road.

“From the time Mr Parris was of the view, having been informed that he could be prosecuted, the potential of having to face the courts was with him,” the Queen’s Counsel told the court, suggesting that the time period before the charge was formally laid should be considered in the context of a breach of the reasonable time guarantee.

Smith argued that there were no statements from the prosecution after February 2010. He further criticized the move to charge Parris solely on statements and evidence given in July 2017.

He told the court: “The Crown would now be using the nuance legal position, if it was their position . . . that you cannot count the six years and ten months because he was not formally charged. What is to happen with those six years and ten months? We are supposed to discount the impact? The psychological impact . . . the impact on his family . . . career opportunities . . . job prospects?

“The crown and its agents have clearly demonstrated a dismissive and flippant attitude to Parris’ rights under the Constitution. The courts of the country are charged with the awesome and all-encompassing responsibility to ensure the State itself, through its agents, does not run amok among the citizenry.

“This case is a case where power, unhindered, unfettered can have a most negative and debilitating impact on a citizen. It is for these honourable courts… to tell the Crown and its agent to wheel and come again.”

Parris’ legal team is seeking an award of $35,000 to pay his legal fees along with compensation and an award of damages to vindicate the breaches of his rights “because of the abuse of process that engulfed this matter”, Smith said.

His lawyers are also seeking either a permanent stay or dismissal of the charge.

At the end of the day’s sitting, the Crown was ordered to file and serve submissions on or before May 31, after which Smith has until June 15 to respond. Justice Griffith has set July 26 for her decision. (TS)