I had a response to my article on the AG, which the sender has kindly allowed me to share with you anonymously. The response is extremely instructive on the attitudes of successive governments to justice, and criminal justice in particular.
Email of January 19, 2008 from a reader
I am happy you wrote this article because as I understand it the AG's staff is very disgruntled and for too long in the Ministry of Justice the laws have been ignored and staff treated in the most unjust manner thinkable.
You may have noticed sometime last year when vacancies for Clerks of the Courts were being advertised, included in the job description of the Clerk was the duty to contact witnesses. Whereas (as a former prosecutor) I chose to do so because of the dishonesty of the police, it is not the DUTY of the Clerk. It is the duty of the police. Having to call all witness wastes valuable time that could be best spent properly preparing for trial, soemthing the Jamaican prosecutor does not have the benefit of. The Minister of Justice (present and past) and the the Permanent Secretary are merely paying lip service to justice. While they are busy "majoring in the minor" crime is on the increase because of the inexperience of the prosecutors, the lack of resources, lack of time to properly prepare for each case and the volume of work to be prepared each night! Many a prosecutor at the DPP's office today lament the fact that they want more time to prepare but how can they when the roster has them in court "back to back?"
The attitude of the current Permanent Secretary towards Legal Officers in the Ministry of Justice is summed up in her comment at a Prosecutor's seminar some 2-3 years ago "Lawyers are a dime a dozen." Consequently the people of Jamaica are receiving "dime a dozen justice"!
Before I resigned from the DPP's office one IMPORTANT issue for determination (which I am advised) recently resurfaced was the need to have Crown Counsel sign a register!
Somehow I blame the Legal Officers for the treatment meted out to them. The fear of being penalised has caused them to forget they are adults first of all and COUNSEL!!!! I recall telling the P.S. at a meeting where she said she intended to have Crown Counsel sign an attendance register "Madam P.S. while you contemplate introducing the attendance register, kindly contemplate my overtime payment for the preparation I do every morning and evening before and after court weekends included, because if you introduce the attendance register I certainly will not be reading any files at home!" The room full of prosecutors remained silent. No one wants to stand up for their own rights but I do believe that when respected counsel comments on the issues from a legal standpoint it is appreciated.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Response from a reader to my article in today's Observer
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Commentary on NNN discussion on AG's Chambers
Emily Crooks and Naomi Francis of Nationwide News Network had a discussion this morning (Jan 08, 2008) on the situation in the Attorney General's Chambers. One of their conclusions was that the AG was entitled to have a say in the management of personnel in the AG's Chambers. Below is my response to them.
Ladies,
I take issue with your analysis this morning on the AG's Chambers for a number of reasons.
1. You both appeared to justify Dorothy's intervention in personnel matters in the AG's Chambers, based on the fact that she is the head of Chambers. You carefully distinguished her role/function as AG from that of Min of Justice, concluding that her intervention was valid if done as AG, but not as Minister. The implication that Dorothy would be guilty of political interference if she acted in her capacity as Minister, but not as AG is completely wrong. You both seemed to ignore the fact that the constitution of Jamaica excludes input from political functionaries in the personnel decisions relating to regular public service officers.
I heard one of you compare the AG with the DPP, in terms of the right to input in personnel decisions. This analysis is completely flawed. Firstly, there is no comparison between the AG and the DPP, save for the fact that they are both creatures of the constitution. The DPP is clearly a non-political functionary, while the AG is clearly a political functionary. The constitution makes it quite clear that political interference (whether by the AG or a cabinet minister) in the selection of public service officers is simply not on. While the DPP will invariably have input in personnel decisions of his department, this does not, and cannot apply to the AG.
The fact that Dorothy has now arrogated to herself the power to approve personnel decisions (as AG) is unprecedented in the 45 years of independence, certainly as far as the AG's Chambers is concerned. Like the PM, Dorothy, whether as AG or Min of Justice, has NO say in the selection of public service personnel in the AG's Chambers or indeed, in the Ministry of Justice. The previous practice of having an executive committee deal with personnel matters as a preliminary to making recommendations to the PSC is, in law, quite correct. Dorothy's claim that this committee had been acting without oversight or accountability is completely false.
2. Naomi, you took issue with Michael Hylton's note to the PS of the Ministry of Justice, which he wrote four days after his resignation took effect. There is nothing untoward in this. Firstly, Michael's note reflected a discussion that he had already had with Dorothy prior to his departure as SG. This was not a conversation that the PS would've been privy to. Further, Dorothy, in a staff meeting with the lawyers in the AG's department had publicly 'trashed' Michael Hylton for having previously documented his position to her (following their conversation). Even if you hold that Mike was "out of order" for responding to the PS, surely, it can't have escaped you that the bigger, and more fundamental issue is the AG's wilful disregard of the constitutional autonomy conferred on the PSC. There is good reason for the AG to be uninvolved in personnel matters, as clearly, any selections approved by her would naturally appear to be partisan (even if that wasn't the intention). This goes against the spirit of the constitution, if not the letter.
3. Naomi, I understand you to be arguing that there is a culture within the AG's Chambers that has ossified over the past 18 years, that is inherently antagonistic to the new AG. This is simply not so, Naomi. As I told you, my father spent most of his career in the AG's Chambers where he served 7 or 8 AGs of differing political stripes. One thing I can tell you is this. Despite the contamination of other government agencies by tribalism over the years, the AG's Chambers has, in my estimation, remained pristine. It is quite unfair for you to assert the existence of such a culture of political resistance without adducing any evidence to support this view. What is more, I can tell you that if you took a poll of the lawyers in the AG's Chambers, you might well find that most of them supported the JLP in the last election, not that that is relevant. As a lawyer of almost 20 years experience, I have never found the AG's Chambers to operate with a partisan agenda, and indeed, all AGs prior to Dorothy, have been content to allow the professionals to get on with the work of the Chambers in a professional and independent manner. Further, if you know anything about the work of the Chambers, there is little or no room to be partisan, even if you were so inclined.
