Lawyers question PM’s public comments on DPP decision in Kadooment shooting case

Prime Minister Mia Mottley has come under scrutiny from fellow members of the legal community for her public call for the Office of the Director of Prosecutions (DPP) to explain the withdrawal of charges against seven men who were allegedly involved in the 2017 Grand Kadooment Day shooting.

While stressing that she does not have constitutional authority over the judiciary or prosecutorial decisions, Mottley said the country deserved transparency in the matter.

The shooting on the Spring Garden Highway (now Mighty Grynner Highway) had left one man dead and 22 others injured.

“I understand the difference between my position constitutionally and other constitutional posts in this country, but I feel strongly that while I have no power whatsoever to direct the Auditor General, the Director of Public Prosecutions, any judge . . . that I have a duty to comment when I see things that are wrong,” she said.

“I don’t know the facts relating to the same incident on Spring Garden, but what I do know is that a country deserves an explanation, and to explain to the people why you would have now to drop the case against those six or seven young men. I pray the DPP would understand his duty to the people who he serves in that constitutional post.”

However, Andrew Pilgrim SC, who was present in court when the case was withdrawn by the prosecution – and who represented one of the accused, Diego Wilson – said that a reason was given and accepted by the court.

“It is best,” the senior counsel insisted, “that politicians stick to politics, especially during this silly season, because they are going to be marked by these comments.”

Pilgrim chastised Mottley for “talking about things she does not know about.”

Lalu Hanuman. (FP)

“I was present in court, when that charge was withdrawn and when it was deeply considered; and my understanding is that it was withdrawn specifically on the basis that the case would have been impossible to prove. This was stated by the prosecutor who was present, Mr [Neville] Watson, and this was accepted by the court because in the context that there was absolutely no identification evidence in the file. But instead, politicians get on platforms and talk a lot of nonsense,” Pilgrim told Barbados TODAY on Tuesday.

He said it was embarrassing to him as a lawyer, that the prime minister, who he maintained should know better, is “getting on a platform and misleading the people of Barbados”.

In a statement shared with Barbados TODAY, Acting Director of Public Prosecutions Alliston Seale SC said explanations were given when a prosecutor from his office went to inform the court of the withdrawal.

He said this particular case was “fraught with prosecutorial challenges”. “After indictment, one of the accused died. In addition, some of the complainants attended court and indicated their unwillingness to testify. Thereafter, the evidence against the other accused was reviewed and found to be inadequate and could not satisfy the evidential test.

“Many members of the public who were present at the scene declined to give the necessary witness statements to the police concerning what they saw. Those that did give witness statements refused to attend identification parades which, in this case, is mandatory pursuant to Section 100 of the Evidence Act Cap 121 of the Laws of Barbados. If the requirements of this provision are not strictly adhered to and the case relies wholly or substantially on identification evidence, as this

one did, then the trial judge is compelled to invoke the provisions of Section 102 and direct the jury to acquit the accused,” Seale explained.

Stressing that “evidence cannot be conjured up by the prosecution” the Acting DPP noted that cases fail when witnesses are not willing to testify at trial.

Attorney-at-law Lalu Hanuman, weighing in on Mottley’s public comments, suggested that the issue should have been handled with greater discretion given the principle of separation of powers. 

He told Barbados TODAY: “Of course there ought to be a separation of powers, but she’s the prime minister, and if an issue arises, I would have thought she might have asked her attorney general to investigate to determine why it was that there were these withdrawals of prosecutions by the DPP. I would have thought she would have gone to her attorney general rather than making statements at a public meeting.”

Michael Lashley SC, another senior criminal attorney who represented one of the accused in the shooting case, Tosharo Ricardo Rouse, said the DPP is within his right to discontinue a case if he feels there is no case. 

“All I would say is that he is within his right to dismiss, if he believes that there is no case,” he told Barbados TODAY.

Hanuman, meantime, acknowledged the challenges faced by the DPP, particularly in cases heavily reliant on witness testimony. 

“I can understand the difficulty that the DPP had over this matter because if people don’t want to come to court to give evidence, and there are even people who had apparently given statements that didn’t want to go to the ID parade. So unless you can have adequate evidence presented to a jury, then there’s no case that the accused can face,” he said.

“So ideally, yes, there ought to be some sort of witness protection scheme.”

 (EJ/SB)