PANTRY
Robert Hart, Parliamentary Reporter
THE LONG-AWAITED report to Parliament from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) is now in the hands of Justice Minister Senator A.J. Nicholson.
Senator Nicholson told The Gleaner yesterday morning that the report was submitted to his office late last week.
"It (the report) should reach both the Cabinet and the Parliament during the month of February," the justice minister said.
OUTLINE ACTIVITIES
The report is expected to provide an explanation of how cases are disposed of and why some go unheard.
On Sunday, Information Minister Senator Burchell Whiteman indicated that the report had not yet been submitted to Cabinet.
The report on the activities in the DPP's Office was requested by Prime Minister P.J. Patterson nine months ago, after prolonged controversy over the handling of several cases.
In a letter to DPP Kent Pantry last year, the prime minister had 'enjoined' him to present to Parliament information concerning the activities in his office.
"The members of Parliament on both sides of the aisle are of the view that information concerning the activities of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions should be presented to Parliament at timely intervals, preferably every quarter, but at least once per year," the letter, released on April 30, said.
CONTROVERSIAL CASE
The written request came immediately after the DPP claimed that a prosecutor in his office had fouled up in the handling of the controversial Janice Allen murder case.
A policeman was acquitted of the shooting death of the 14-year-old girl when, according to Mr. Pantry, the prosecutor failed to follow standard procedures.
Last month, the justice minister said that the DPP's report would be ready in early January. Initially, Senator Nicholson had expected the report to be tabled in December, but the draft submitted was not "up to the standard necessary for Parliament."
The prime minister's request for a report raised some eyebrows because the Constitution does not require the DPP to report to any authority.
Mr. Patterson has suggested, however, that it might be time to revisit the Constitution to examine whether such a requirement should be put in place.
