9 Aug 2008

DPP 'threatens' magistrate!

I've pointed out before that Barendra Sinanan is often partisan in the decisions he makes in Parliament, and I've also pointed out that DPP G Henderson is anything but impartial. Henderson is closely tied with the AG (a PNM member and supporter) and with Pa-trick so he has his strings pulled. Whether this is willingly or because of political pressure remains to be seen - but I can say this - Mark Mohammed resisted many an effort to interfere with the independence of the DPP's office.

The latest salvo against Henderson comes from a magistrate sitting in the Arima Magistrates' Courts. Senior Magistrate Debra Quintyne had to publicly take Henderson to task after he 'threatened' her via a letter regarding a case of assault against a police officer by a more senior officer.

To put it bluntly, it appears that Henderson is protecting the senior officer.

An Arima magistrate criticised Director of Public Prosecutions Geoffrey Henderson for a letter he sent to her, declaring in open court yesterday she felt "threatened" by statements he made.

The letter, a copy of which the Express obtained, related to Senior Magistrate Debra Quintyne's insistence that four police officers have to be called as witnesses in an assault case, in which a police officer and his mother are the alleged victims.

Quintyne said she felt "threatened" that the DPP wrote to her, advising that the four officers would not be called as part of the prosecution case, and that the State would pursue its legal options should the magistrate take it upon herself to call the officers to testify.

Cpl Inskip Julien, of the Northern Division Task Force, is charged with assaulting Molly Boxhill and her son Police Constable Dale Anderson Boxhill.

In the letter, Henderson advised the State was "prepared to have any order of the court (to call the four officers) reviewed by the Court of Appeal pursuant to Section 36 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, Chapter 4:01".

One wonders why Henderson is interfering in the natural judicial process. If the matter is at the court, it means that his office has already found it has a case against Cpl Julien and is pursuing justice for PC Boxhill.

Otherwise, it would be more advisable to drop the charges and let Julien go free.

At a last resort the 4 dunceys could pull a Shermie and refuse to testify.

But since the case is actually going on, why interfere and prevent with the witnesses from testifying? Being DPP aside, isn't that act itself against the law? Witness tampering or some such thing?

By the way, this assault took place in February 2006... and it's now in court? Justice isn't only blind, deaf and dumb, it's also a quadriplegic apparently.

Comments