Attorney J. Samuel Jackson Corrects The DPP On The Law In A Planning Enforcement Case.  DPP Later Drops Planning Charges But Displays A “Comedy Of Errors” & Amendments In Describing Charges In Other Cases

By Alric Lindsay

In Summary Court today, December 3, 2024, counsel from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions missed the mark in identifying the law in the planning enforcement case of Alpha Head Limited, made written errors describing the charges in a property damage matter, and attempted to lay duplicate charges against a company to which the company’s director had already pled guilty recently. Overall, it was a “comedy of errors” and missteps by the DPP in full view of Summary Court observers.

The case of Alpha Head Limited

Regarding the case of Alpha Head Limited, its attorney, J. Samuel Jackson, was in the Summary Court to address an allegation that the company failed to comply with an enforcement notice.

First, Jackson highlighted that the matter being brought by the DPP was barred by section 78 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

This states as follows:

Limitation of time for proceedings for summary offences

78. Except where a longer time is specially allowed by law, no offence which is triable summarily shall be triable by a Summary Court unless the charge or complaint relating to it is laid within six months from the date on which evidence sufficient to justify proceedings came to the actual or constructive knowledge of a competent complainant…

The important point to note from the above is that the DPP must lay the charge within six months.  If not, DPP will be barred under section 78 of the Criminal Procedure Code from having the matter tried in the Summary Court.

Explaining the situation and the six-month mathematical calculation, Jackson highlighted the following:

1. The enforcement notice was served on December 12.
2. The enforcement notice stated that it was deemed to take effect 28 days after it was served. Using Jackson’s math, this would be January 8.
3. The 28 days is also the timeframe for filing an appeal.
4. After that initial 28 days, the property owner has another 28 days to remedy the breach noted in the enforcement notice.  This would take matters to around February 5.
5. If the property owner fails to remedy the breach, the owner becomes strictly liable for “failing to comply with an enforcement notice.”
6. The DPP would have to lay the charge six months from February 5, which is approximately August 5.
7. In this case, the charge was laid on October 22. This was more than the six-month deadline for the charge to be laid under section 78 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, the matter cannot be tried before the Summary Court.

Having outlined the basic mathematics and principles, Jackson suggested that there was sufficient evidence before the Summary Court to dispense with the matter.

However, DPP counsel resisted Jackson’s explanation and cited that the Planning Department had a “five-year period within which matters can be pursued.”

The Chief Magistrate then asked DPP counsel to refer the Summary Court to the relevant section of the Development and Planning Act, which refers to the five-year period.

DPP Counsel indicated that she did not have the section of the Development and Planning Act in front of her as she did not expect Jackson to raise the point.

Jackson offered to assist DPP counsel by explaining section 18 of the Development and Planning Act to her. 

Jackson said: “The five-year period she’s referring to is the… period within which the director of planning can issue an enforcement notice.”

Jackson emphasized that this had nothing to do with the matter at hand as the enforcement notice had already been issued and the clock started to tick.

DPP counsel then withdrew the charge against Alpha Head Limited as it was clear DPP missed the six-month deadline to lay the charge to make the matter triable before the Summary Court in compliance with section 78 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

DPP duplicates charges against Centre For Women, Family & Child Health

In another matter, Awardnath (Howard) Deosaran appeared in the Summary Court to face charges for failing to pay wages and arrears of contributions into a pension plan.

While it appears that the DPP intended to charge him personally, the charge actually stated that he was being charged as a director of the Centre for Women, Family & Child Health.

In fact, Deosaran already pleaded guilty in a previous court hearing as a director of the Centre for Women, Family & Child Health. Therefore, the DPP incorrectly worded the charge.

The correct wording of the charge should have stated that it concerned Deosaran personally. 

The Chief Magistrate having identified the DPP’s error, the DPP counsel requested that the wording of the charge be amended to delete the words “as a sole director” and “up to the word Limited.”   That way, the amended wording would refer only to Deosaran individually and not him in his capacity as a director of the company.

DPP’s errors in damage to property charge

Another set of DPP errors was noted in the case of Joshua Glendale Ebanks, who faced several charges, including “Destroying or damaging property.”

Reportedly, on April 28, 2024, Ebanks allegedly damaged a Ford Explorer service vehicle belonging to the Royal Cayman Islands Police Service.

However, the DPP presented a charge in the Summary Court referring to a “fence” instead of a “service vehicle.”

The DPP then requested in the Summary Court that the word “fence” be deleted and replaced with “service vehicle.”

This not being the only set of mistakes presented by the DPP, the Chief Magistrate noted her disappointment in “having badly worded charges” laid before her by the DPP in the Summary Court.

Share on Facebook

Post on X