Acting Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Sherma Dalrymple, says that the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions has “always acted independently and in the interest of justice.”
She made her comments in light of concerns raised about a letter to attorney at law Cara Shillingford requesting disclosure in the controversial treating case involving Prime Minister Roosevelt Skerrit and his cabinet colleagues.
On April 16, 2021, acting DPP Dalrymple invoked Section 72 (2) of the Constitution and wrote to attorney Cara Shillingford requesting disclosure of the witness statements and documents intended to be introduced as evidence in the matter.
“Everything that is done by the DPP is for the furtherance of justice and this was the sole reason for the request of disclosure in the Treating matter,” she stated.
According to her, the office of the DPP is an independent and impartial office and “is not working with anyone in the Treating matter or taking instructions from anyone in the matter.”
“I am simply operating within the confines of the law by making such a request…I must also add, that in criminal matters, litigation is not done via ambush, you have to disclose, so the parties in any matter have a right to request disclosure,” Dalrymple explained.
She also requested a list of the intended witnesses to give evidence and says it’s all in the interest of fairness and justice for both sides.
May 13, 2021, is the date set for hearing the Treating case after the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) upheld an Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal decision remitting the matter back to the Magistrate’s court and ordering the Chief Magistrate to issue summons to have those involved come to court to answer to the Treating case.
A former prosecutor in the Office of the DPP, Clement Joseph, who now works overseas, has weighed in on the matter. He contends that the DLP defense lawyers have acted prematurely in themselves requesting disclosure from the complainants’ attorneys.
“So for those who aren’t familiar with criminal practice and the procedure here, it is: person appears before the court either by warrant/arrest or summons, charges read to them and for a summary matter, they are required to plead,” Joseph explained. “If they plead guilty, no disclosure is required. If they plead not guilty, then the court sets a date for the trial and also an order for disclosure for the prosecution to affect disclosure. This matter has not had its first reading by the court and you are writing to the prosecution demanding disclosure? What if at the first hearing the prosecution asks the court to dismiss the matter?”
Joseph continued, “Remember when one argument was that the matter was not before the court and so they could not have sought the DPP’s powers to dismiss? Yet nothing changed and they have asked the DPP to intervene.”
He called on John Baptiste and St. Valle to only “respond to the DPP but not others”.
“They do not have the authority to request disclosure from you. That comes from an order of the court after the first hearing when it gives direction,” Joseph insisted. “So on 13th May, the trial can never begin to take evidence. That is the day when the defendants go into the dock where the charges are read to them and they get to plead. If I were those guys I would reply to the defense and ask them are they planning to plead guilty.”
Joseph held the position of Acting DPP for a short time while working in Dominica and has also worked in the Turks and Caicos Islands .
My take is that the DPP should review the evidence, make a decision as to whether she wants to proceed, given the facts of the evidence and let the public know her decision. After, the defense can recieve all the evidence within a reasonable time to get their defense case/strategy in order. Yes the defendants need to have the evidence, the question for me is when should they recieve it? Do they recieve it before the DPP even makes a decision? Or do they get their copies of the evidence after it has been reviewed and prosecution has publicly declared to proceed. Some say the defense can get the evidence at any time, doesnt matter, before or after the DPP decides.
For me, if she decides to not try the case, why should Tony get any evidence. The case isnt being tried, there is no case. But if she does decides to try it, it must be transparent and the office of the DPP must not be seen as biased to ANY side, government or not. tony or lawrence shouldnt help her determine if she trying…
See what i mean? Let the charges be read, let ALL who are names say for themselves, guilty or not guilty. Then, we can disclose evidence in the event that the case is going forward.
You will be remembered as an enabler of Roosevelt Skerrit and his dlp….. put dat on your resume!
You people never act purely in de public interest….. there’s always a certain senior counsels in de background like they directing all you actions….their voices sound louder earlier than yours!!!
Almost directing you to act in their interest…. you will sit in your high position of authority above de ordinary citizens and feel like you know better than us!!!!!
You must understand dat we de public don’t appreciate our legal authority to pass like a laughing stock!!!…. easily influenced by certain senior counsels!!!!!……. everytime!!
She is as bend as Beckham… Prime example for all of us to see what money can do. The biggest joke, our own money is used to buy justice against our own best interest!
The comments made by Clement Joseph is just his legal opinion, which he is entitled to, It is also based on generalization of the application of the procedure of the law which is somewhat outlandish, every case of Law should be applied to the specifics of the particular case, and not be generalized. Sherma Dalrymple, The DDP has done nothing illegal or outside the bounds of her authority, given to her under the Constitution.
The Complainants have nothing to disclose at the initial trial. The Defendants on the other hand have to either plead GUILTY or NOT GUILTY. It the Defendants pleads NOT GUILTY then the Complainants discloses to the court at a follow up sitting their evidence and witnesses.
The defense lawyers are are trying to get information on the treating that may be in the domain of the complainants and I suspect the Acting DPP is being coerced to get it from the complainants for the defense.
Read my lips
Do you know how silly you are with your statement, “The defence lawyers are trying to get information on the treating that may be in the domain of the complainants” so information has replaced evidence, lol, since when evidence /information becomes the domain of Plaintiffs, is this how the adjudication process works, wow.
You’re opening sentence in your comment “The Complainants have nothing to disclose at the initial trial.” such comment suggest that a Plaintiff can just file a criminal complaint hoping that they might get the defendant to Court to defend themselves on something that may be frivolous and waste the Courts time, that’s why The DDP can invoke Section 72 (2) of the Constitution on her discretion asking for disclosure of witness statements and documents intended to be introduced as evidence in the matter making sure that the case is not frivolous
so the matter can go ahead without wasting the Courts time. It is absurd to suggest that the Acting DPP is being…
Isnt the DPP part of the law enforcement branch in Dominica? Isn’t part of the DPP job to ensure that all suspicions of crime be fully investigated which involves the collection of evidence and court orders to turn over record? Does a citizen not have the right to alert the police of suspected crime and they in turn do a full investigation. Why then would all this make it to the Supreme court if no crime was committed? Sounds like a waste of time and legal grey matter. Is bribery and treating not illegal under the laws of Dominica? Why then is the DPP asking for evidence hen it if the law enforcement responsibility to investigate fully and collect all evidence there is. Am i missing something here. Why then is the DPP allowing the state to press charges for trying to overthrow the government and the case tried by a foreign lawyer? Are we really serious in this place or is there something i am missing? Sounds like a court of jesters.
Is anyone surprised by the DPP’s request? Tony asks, Tony gets. The man is the de facto leader of the most corrupt and dysfunctional government probable in the world.
Corruption permeates every strata of government and society in Dominica. Even some of our most revered and trusted institutions and organizations have succumbed to its enticement.
MONEY has a dark and corrupting influence. It can change a person with a heart of gold into a self-centered, cold hearted, demonic reprobate. The evidence of this is quite pellucid in Dominica.
One man has stolen the soul of the country. It will take generations yet unborn to repair.
Thanks you Mr. Clement Joseph or this clarification. I salute Marigot for producing so many illustrious sons of the soil. Where would the country be without the solid, steadfast no-nonesense, independent-minded people of Marigot?
I don’t understand why this young lady would taint her reputation for the sake of Skerrit. There is life after this DLP Government Madame DPP. They cannot and will not last forever
Ms. Dalrymple, you know that you have no right or authority to make the request you did! I mean you are not the only person who knows the law, or probably you do think so. Have you read what Joseph said? Or is like the rest of us are just downright stupid??
It’s like the official from DEXIA who told us recently that there wasn’t a “shortage of sugar” when indeed there was none on the shelves. She said it was a “delay” 😸😹🤔🙄.
Now you talk of “litigation …by ambush”???! Where is this language coming from? My dear lady please don’t do that to yourself; it’s not worth it. Just do your job professionally, which means without fear nor favour. One’s reputation is all a person’s got!
HOTEP!
Not the furtherance of justice but rather the protection of a rogue PM and a corrupt government. Dominica doesn’t trust you, lady. You would not be in your position if you where not a supporter of Skerrit. Full stop!
Everything that is done by the DPP is in furtherance of holding on to her job. The prior holder of the position has exposed her biasness in the matter. Let’s see what the “so-called independent DPP” does on the 13th. It’s a bloody shame.
If the accused are innocent, what possible ambush could be laid against them. On the other hand, disclosure of witnesses at this stage could lead to intimidation and witness tampering and I have suspicions that the accused, if not their agents will be tempted to just that. Beware folks!
As pertains to court matters, i can’t say that i know anything much. But when the attorneys for Skerrit et al, asked for disclosure, would they have it in their hands, or at their disposal before the trial? Somebody help me please!
If so this would be madness!
Hope St Vall and JnoBaptiste acted cleverly.
This is not about hoping St Vall and JnoBaptiste acted cleverly. It is about being honest in presenting evidence to prove their case. Cleverly is a word reserved for their to action to manipulate the judicial system with a frivolous criminal complaint.