Below is a slightly edited transcript of the explanation given by Director of Public Prosecutions Paula Llewellyn for the decision not to proceed with the prosecution of David Bruce Bicknell for breaches of the Corruption Prevention Act and proceeding with the prosecution of Member of Parliament Daryl Vaz for the same offence. These decisions were confirmed on Thursday morning.
On March 21, 2014 and March 24, 2014 I received correspondence from the attorneys in the captioned matters inviting me to withdraw the case against their respective clients in light of the fact that a no case submission made by Mr. K.D. Knight, Q.C. on January 21, 2014 on behalf of Mr. David Bruce Bicknell in his related matter for Attempting to Pervert the Course of Justice was upheld by Her Honour Mrs. Stephanie Jackson-Haisley.
Having thoroughly perused the notes of evidence in the matter and discussed the issues in the trial with the lead prosecutor the matter against Mr. Bicknell and Senior Superintendent James Forbes as well as considered the relevant law on the issues pertinent to the prosecution of the matters existing against Mr. Bicknell and Mr. Vaz, I am declining to proceed against Mr. David Bruce Bicknell in relation to the charge of breach of the Corruption Prevention Act. I have, however, decided that the Crown will proceed with the matter against Mr. Daryl Vaz, M.P. for breach of the Corruption Prevention Act.
I hereby outline the reasons for my decision with respect to each individual. This course is being adopted in order to provide clarity in the public domain for what have been very high public interest matters.
History
On the 20th July, 2012, a file was submitted by the Anti-Corruption Branch to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (the Office) for a ruling to be made as to whether there was any “breach of Force policy and [attempt] to pervert the course of justice by police officers and persons in the corporate and political sphere committed between April 9 and 13, 2012.”
The material submitted contained allegations of breaches of the Corruption Prevention Act by Mr. Bicknell and Mr. Daryl Vaz, Member of Parliament, and an attempt to pervert the course of justice by Mr. Bicknell and Senior Superintendent (SSP) James Forbes.
After extensive legal research and consultation, the Office ruled on the 16th August, 2012 that Mr. Bicknell and SSP Forbes were to be charged with Attempting to Pervert the Course of Justice and Mr. Bicknell and Mr. Daryl Vaz, M.P. were to be charged with breach of section 14 (2) of the Corruption Prevention Act.
The trial of the matter against Mr. Bicknell and SSP Forbes commenced on the 10th June, 2013. On the 21st January, 2014, a no case submission was upheld in relation to Mr. Bicknell relative to the charge of Attempting to Pervert the Course of Justice; SSP Forbes was found guilty in relation to the charge on the 9th April, 2014.
Both Mr. Vaz, M.P. and Mr. Bicknell returned to the Corporate Area Resident Magistrate’s Court on the 17th July, 2014 where the matter against Mr. David Bruce Bickell for breach of section 14 (2) of the Corruption Prevention Actwas discontinued and the matter against Mr. Daryl Vaz, MP was set to continue on another date.
Reasons for not proceeding against David Bruce Bicknell
(1) Mr. Bicknell is charged for breach of section 14(2) of the Corruption Prevention Act which provides that:
A person commits an act of corruption if he offers or grants directly or indirectly, to a public servant any article, money or other benefit, being a gift, favour, promise or advantage to the public servant or another person, for doing an act or omitting to do any act in the performance of the public servant’s public function.
(2) A vital ingredient of this offence is a direct or indirect offer or grant made by the individual to the public servant of some benefit for the purpose stipulated in the Act.
(3) The Crown also has to prove that at the time the offer was made it was done with the requisite mens rea, that is, an intention corruptly to make this offer.
(4) In the instant case, it would be difficult for the Crown to establish to the requisite standard of proof—beyond a reasonable doubt—that there was either a direct or indirect offer or grant made by Mr. Bicknell to Sergeant Jubert Llewellyn.
(5) Additionally, there were conflicting pieces of evidence advanced by Sergeant Llewellyn relative to whether or not an offer was made to him by Mr. Bicknell and whether he had been bribed.
(i) Sergeant Llewellyn was unable to settle on the Chronology of Events and the words uttered by Mr. Bicknell
Sergeant Llewellyn had a significant evidential challenge in Court deciding on the actual words that were uttered by Mr. Bicknell to him on the 9th April, 2012, which initially caused him to form the view that he was being bribed by Mr. Bicknell.
(a) In examination-in-chief, he indicated that when he told Mr. Bicknell he would be ticketed for the offence of exceeding the speed limit, Mr. Bicknell said, “Officer don’t bother write the ticket cause I can take care of you.”
(b) After he received the car documents and while going through them, he saw two (2) J$1,000.00 notes among the car papers. He pointed out the presence of the notes to Mr. Bicknell and asked him the purpose of the notes and Mr. Bicknell said, “It’s okay officer, you can have them.”
(c) Immediately, he pointed out to Sergeant Dellon Lewis what had transpired, which resulted in the subsequent arrest and charge of Mr. Bicknell by Sergeant Lewis.
(d) In cross-examination by Mr. K.D. Knight, Q.C, Sergeant Llewellyn agreed that there were differences between his first statement and his second statement as to the chronology of events as well the words he attributed to Mr. Bicknell. He eventually stated that he was abandoning his second statement and abiding by his first statement.
(ii) Sergeant Llewellyn expressed uncertainty as to whether Mr. Bicknell tried to bribe him
(a) In cross-examination by Mr. Knight, Q.C., Sergeant Llewellyn agreed that he had expressed uncertainty on at least two occasions that Mr. Bicknell was trying to bribe him.
He agreed that one occasion was when he had gone to former Commissioner Lucius Thomas seeking advice in relation to the matter.
The other occasion was when he met with SSP Forbes on the 13th April, 2012.
(b) Sergeant Dellon Lewis also stated that at the meeting “Mr. Bicknell said that the two (2) $1,000 notes that were in the envelope handed to Sergeant Llewellyn were at some point inadvertently placed in the envelope and that he was not intending to bribe Sergeant Llewellyn.”
“Sergeant Llewellyn was then asked to respond by SSP Forbes. Sergeant Llewellyn proceeded by saying that what Mr. Bicknell said was a possibility because when he had requested the documents from Mr. Bicknell he did not ask for any money.”
(c) Sergeant Lewis said in answer to Mrs. Jacqueline Samuels-Brown, Q.C. in cross-examination that “Sergeant Llewellyn did not use the words he was uncertain. He said that the money could have inadvertently passed on to him with the documents in the envelope.”
(i) Sergeant Llewellyn and Lewis say that the Meeting at SSP Forbes’ Office was about Correcting a Mistake he had made in Charging Mr. Bicknell
(a) Sergeant Llewellyn said in answer to Mrs. Samuels-Brown, Q.C. in cross-examination that the meeting with SSP Forbes was about correcting a mistake he had made.
(b) Sergeant Lewis also agreed with Mrs. Samuels-Brown, Q.C. that based on what was said (in the meeting), he was of the opinion that the meeting was to correct a mistake.
(c) Sergeant Lewis, the investigating officer in the matter, also stated further in cross-examination that “it was clear that (he) would not have the evidence to proceed with a bribery charge.”
Based on these factors, it is clear that not only would it be impossible for the Crown to establish the vital elements of the offence in respect of Mr. Bicknell (the making of an offer or grant by Mr. Bicknell and an intention to corruptly make this offer), but the credibility of Sergeant Llewellyn, the complainant in the matter, has been materially affected.
Consequently, there is no reasonable prospect of a successful prosecution, as in this case the Crown would not be able successfully to resist a no case submission made by the Defence at the end of its case.
Reasons for proceeding against Daryl Vaz, MP
(1) The prosecution, in conducting the matter against Mr. Bicknell for Attempting to Pervert the Course of Justice, was careful not to elicit any evidence relative to Mr. Vaz’s matter. Therefore, the fact that a no case submission was upheld in relation to the case against Mr. Bicknell is not a determinative factor as to whether the case proceeds against Mr. Vaz.
(2) The case against Mr. Vaz has to be determined on its own merits because, while it arose from the case against Mr. Bicknell, it is constituted on substantially distinct facts as it pertains to a meeting between himself and Sergeant Jubert Llewellyn on the 12th April, 2012.
(3) This case is one which essentially depends on the assessment of the credibility of Sergeant Llewellyn by the tribunal of fact in relation to the meeting between himself and Mr. Vaz. It is trite law that the tribunal of fact can accept a part of a witness’s evidence and reject a part.
In these circumstances, it is my view that it would not be appropriate for the Crown to discontinue the prosecution against Mr. Daryl Vaz, M.P. as it is for the court to make the final determination pertaining to Mr. Vaz’s guilt or innocence based on the material before it.
View the original article here
Bicknell case: DPP explains
