By Alric Lindsay
On November 14, 2024, Jonathon Hughes of Samson Law Associates noted his intention in Summary Court to make legal arguments for an abuse of process against the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The issue relates to an alleged failure of DPP’s Crown Counsel to comply with a Court order to produce expert evidence and cases being reassigned to different lawyers within the DPP from time to time. Reportedly, the issues have led to delays in the case and confusion about who is dealing with matters at the DPP. Additionally, the lack of progress impacts Hughes’ client.
Non-compliance with Court order
Based on statements made in Summary Court, Magistrate Hernandez previously issued an order that the DPP serve the outstanding matter within seven days of her order. However, the DPP appears to have ignored the order.
Responding to Magistrate Hernandez’s concern, Crown counsel for the DPP said the order was not ignored; instead, the statement sought from a doctor “did not materialize.”
The Summary Court appeared to interpret the statement from DPP’s Crown Counsel as a matter of “semantics.” In other words, it seemed that the order previously given by the Summary Court was not complied with in that DPP’s Crown Counsel did not produce information crucial to parties to the proceedings.
Delays impact trial date and client
Given the DPP’s office’s reported ongoing delays, Magistrate Hernandez asked whether the DPP’s Crown Counsel would be ready for trial on November 25.
DPP’s Crown Counsel was forthright in noting that it didn’t appear that he would obtain the doctor’s statement by November 25.
Hughes interjected, noting that one of the problems with the case was the “musical chairs” within the DPP’s office, whereby persons assigned to the case stepped away. This was a matter previously raised in the Summary Court.
In the meantime, Hughes noted how his client was suffering.
Hughes explained:
[The doctor is] the expert who’s supposed to give this evidence and he hasn’t given it yet.
Now this gentleman who’s a sole trader had his business raided all of his stock seized and has been unable to trade since this case happened well over a year ago, it could be 18 months ago.
He is desperate to have this matter resolved.
Hughes added that his client is “on his knees financially” and had to obtain legal aid to pay legal fees.
Hughes concluded that if one looks at the file’s history, “ it’s Crown delay, Crown delay, Crown delay, Crown delay, Crown delay, going back over years.”
Trial date converted to legal argument for abuse of process
Given the totality of the concerns that the office of the DPP could be kicking the can down the road and cause further delays, Hughes suggested that the upcoming November 25 trial date “be converted to an application for stay proceedings by way of abuse of process.”
Hughes added, “if there ever is a case which has been handled so badly that it warrants a review with respect to abuse of process, it maybe is this one.”
After hearing from Hughes and the DPP’s Crown Counsel, Magistrate Hernandez determined that the November 25 trial date would be converted to a legal argument case regarding abuse of process by the DPP’s office.
