Cases Highlight That The Director Of Public Prosecutions Continues To Breach Summary Court Orders To Disclose Documents. Is The DPP Above The Law?
|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
By Alric Lindsay
Today, May 26, 2025, Crown Counsel for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions appeared in the Summary Court to discuss traffic sentences for two people. In both instances, Magistrate Gunn found the DPP to be in breach of Summary Court orders to disclose documents to defence counsel. Unfortunately, these are just two of a series of occurrences where the DPP is found to be in breach, but there are no consequences in court for such breaches.
The case of Rico Delroy Codner
In Rico Delroy Codner’s case, defence counsel Stacy-Ann Kelly highlighted that she did not receive disclosure documents from the DPP for alleged offences of driving under the influence of alcohol, driving whilst impaired, and careless driving.
In the circumstances, Kelly requested the Summary Court to adjourn the matter.
Upon hearing this, Magistrate Gunn said:
Well, firstly this was mentioned on the last occasion and secondly the Crown was told to disclose by the close of business. This was on the 29th of April, so some 4 weeks ago.
DPP Crown Counsel responded:
It doesn’t seem to have been done, your honour.
I do apologise your honour.
In the meantime, Codner’s bail was extended to June 4, 2025.
The case of Alicia Dashay Dunbar
Next up today was the case of Alicia Dashay Dunbar, which involved allegations of failing to provide a specimen of breath, careless driving, and causing fear or provocation of violence.
However, concerning the allegation of causing fear or provocation of violence, defence counsel Stacy-Ann Kelly noted that she had just received the documents from DPP Crown Counsel in court.
In the circumstances, Kelly asked the court for an adjournment.
Upon hearing about the failure to disclose documents in a timely manner by the DPP Crown Counsel, Magistrate Gunn said, “You should have been served with a disclosure by the 1st of May.”
It is understood that DPP Crown Counsel apologised for this as well.
The matter is expected to be heard again on June 10, 2025.
Continued breaches without consequences
It would be one thing if the above represented one-off breaches by the DPP. However, they do not. The DPP breaches Summary Court orders periodically without any consequences from the court.
For example, in the November 26, 2024, case of Tiquan Raheim Forbes, the Chief Magistrate highlighted that the DPP breached a Summary Court order.
In that case, thousands of pages of disclosure documents were supposed to be provided to the defence. However, none were provided.
The DPP’s response in court was: “All I can say is it is still outstanding.”
This response did not meet the satisfaction of the Summary Court as the Chief Magistrate reminded DPP counsel that on October 18, 2024, she made an order for the DPP to serve the documents within seven days. However, over a month later, the DPP still had not complied with the order of the Summary Court.
The Chief Magistrate referred to DPP’s non-compliance as “of the utmost disrespect.”
While the DPP was put on notice that, in 2025, everyone would be held accountable for breaches of Summary Court orders, the breaches continued.
Evidence of this was a case in the Summary Court on January 14, 2025, where attorney Clyde Allen highlighted to the Chief Magistrate that the DPP breached a Summary Court order given to the DPP in 2024 to produce a copy of the manufacturer’s manual used by the police for the intoxilyzer machine which measures the amount of alcohol in a person’s breath, especially when the police suspect that a person was driving under the influence.
At the time, the Chief Magistrate concluded that “The manual is to be provided within seven days.”
However, on February 13, 2025, the DPP withdrew a DUI charge against a woman after being hopelessly unable to obtain the manufacturer’s manual for the intoxilyzer machine used by the Royal Cayman Islands Police Service for breath testing.
The Chief Magistrate dismissed the matter, returning the woman’s driver’s licence to her and reversing her interim disqualification from driving.
This should have resulted in a floodgate of requests to have DUI charges dismissed on the same basis.
Is DPP above the law?
The DPP’s periodic breaches of Summary Court orders above should have attracted consequences.
For example, looking at another court’s practice circular, it appears that strict compliance with court orders should be the norm, not the exception.
Another court’s practice circular quoted a UK judge’s comments as follows:
The court is entitled to expect – and from now on family courts will demand ~ strict compliance with all such orders. Non-compliance with orders should be expected to have and will usually have a consequence.
Let me spell it out. An order that something is to be done by 4pm on Friday, is an order to do that thing by 4pm on Friday, not by 4.21pm on Friday let alone by 3.01pm the following Monday or some time later the following week. A person who finds himself unable to comply timeously with his obligations under an order should apply for an extension of time before the time for compliance has expired.
It is simply not acceptable to put forward as an explanation for non-compliance with an order the burden of other work. If the time allowed for compliance with an order turns out to be inadequate the remedy is either to apply to the court for an extension of time or to pass the task to someone else who has available the time in which to do it.
If the DPP continues to periodically breach Summary Court orders, it will result in case adjournments, a waste of the Summary Court’s time and waste of defence counsel’s time that they could have been spending helping people get access to justice.
Note to readers:
For previous cases where the DPP breached Summary Court orders, please see the links below.
For a previous case noting DPP’s missteps, constantly changing lawyers and delaying a case, please see the link below.
