By Alric Lindsay
In an odd turn of events, the Honourable Mr Justice Stanley John, who previously gave the order to halt all indecent and common assault proceedings against McKeeva Bush earlier this year, has now said that those proceedings are only partially halted.
The Honourable Mr. Justice Stanley John explained:
Bush was before the Court on an indictment containing four counts.
Counts one (1) and (3) pertained to the alleged indecent assault and common assault of [Female 1].
Counts two (2) and four (4) pertained to the alleged indecent assault and common assault of [Female 2].
The Honourable Mr Justice Stanley John added:
During the trial, the Defence applied for a stay.
The Defence contended that due to the conduct of the Prosecution, there was an abuse in relation to counts two (2) and four (4); that is to say, the evidence involving the allegations relating to [Female 2].
The entire proceedings were stayed because “The prosecutorial system was being misused by person/s with their own agenda.”
Partially reversing his decision, the Honourable Mr Justice Stanley John said:
Counts Two (2) and Four (4) should be stayed.
The manner in which the Prosecution was conducted in relation to Female 2 caused the Court a great deal of disquiet, and the Court invoked its inherent jurisdiction to stay the proceedings to prevent any abuse of process.
The Court was wrong to stay the entire case as the submissions were premised solely on the issues that led to the preferment of the indictment against the Defendant in respect of [Female 2].
The Court rescind[s] the Order of Stay in respect of counts one (1) and three (3).
What happens next?
It is understood that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions may now pick up where it left off when the stay was imposed for counts one and three.
For members of the public following the case, the Court’s decision will seem confusing because, following Bush’s not-guilty rape verdict this week, it was assumed that all of the allegations were now behind him. The Court’s partial reversal of its decision in an earlier case now changes this.
Any continuation of previously halted proceedings for counts one and three appears to be in the hands of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
However, the optics are complicated because Bush recently stated that he intended to bring a motion to Parliament to start a commission of inquiry into the conduct of the affairs of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Given this background, if the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions continues legal proceedings against Bush now, it could be perceived as “retaliation” to Bush’s comments to initiate an investigation into the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
