Cayman DNA Case, 15-Month Wait, DPP Fails To Bring File To Court Twice, Justice Delayed.
|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
By Alric Lindsay
A case before the Cayman Summary Court on July 2, 2026, has raised serious questions about the timing and transparency of criminal prosecutions after it emerged that Antonio Shamari Duran was only recently charged—15 months after the alleged incident occurred in 2024.
Adding to the confusion, Crown Counsel from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions admitted she did not have a case file with her in court despite the matter appearing on the list of cases coming before the Summary Court today.
Surprised at the response of DPP Crown Counsel, the Chief Magistrate said:
… it was before the court on the 9th of June. So, I don’t know why you don’t have a file.
You didn’t have a file on the last occasion; I would have hoped we’d have one today.
This will be the second date you don’t have a file.
The Chief Magistrate added:
The events took place in 2024. Why is the charge only filed some 15 months later in 2025, and why is it only just coming now?
And if there is any evidence, then it ought to be served. But considering the age of this matter, and an explanation as to why it has taken this long, would be useful to the court.
Regarding evidence, it appears that there was no CCTV footage and DPP’s case relies on DNA evidence.
Defence counsel Amelia Fosuhene raised alarm bells about this, highlighting that the nature and location of the DNA evidence remained unclear. Specifically, defence counsel said: “I don’t know if it’s inside, outside, left, right, top down,” indicating the absence of a complete file.
The Chief Magistrate ordered the DPP Crown Counsel to produce all evidence, including the DNA report, and to provide a detailed explanation for the delay by the next hearing date on July 16, 2026.
Note to readers
While DNA can be a powerful tool in investigations, delays of this magnitude—especially without clear justification—can compromise the integrity of the justice system.
Such delays not only undermine public confidence but also risk prejudicing the defendant’s right to a fair trial.
If there are continued delays, this case may be a candidate for an abuse of process argument.
Further, today’s case raised further concerns about administrative oversight at the DPP’s office.
