We give credit to Barbados Today for highlighting this grave injustice meted out to Kobia Jamal Robinson by Director of Public Prosecutions Charles Leacock. The idea that a person charged with a crime in Barbados has to wait for three years to have their case heard is embarrassing and wrong. The fact others have had to be on remand for longer than three years confirms what BU has been commenting for several years – see Tales from the Courts.
We have two issues the authorities must resolve with dispatch:
A heavy backlog of cases in the Barbados Courts
A Director of Public Prosecutions who is unable to ready cases for trial in a timely manner despite the backlog of cases
A reminder to Leacock – JUSTICE delayed is JUSTICE denied!
The Dueck’s lawyers Barry Gale and Andrew Pilgrim are quoted a saying “This was a case where there was in the first place never any evidence to support any criminal charges against either Barry Dueck or his wife Barbara. Regrettably criminal charges were brought by the police based on misinformation and, critically the omission of important evidence. This resulted tragically in a gross miscarriage of justice and their wrongful arrest and detention“. They added ” It is clear that the Duecks have suffered tremendously both personally and financially as a result of this unwarranted criminal process which was instigated by the virtual complainant.” According to earlier newspaper reports the complainants were Jean Delangis of 411 St Peter’s Bay, Road View, St Peter and Robert Richardson of 10 Forest Hills, Royal Westmoreland, St James.
Is it only the BU household who is concerned about how the case against the Duecks has panned out?
What flawed due diligence informed the decision to log the case by the Barbados Police Force in an overburdened Barbados Court?
Is there an issue of accountability to be brought against the officers responsible?
Who are the complainants Jean Delangis and Robert Richardson. Why were they allowed to instigate this matter against the Duecks?
Many Barbadians read the story that appeared in yesterday’s media Charges dropped against couple with some interest including members of the BU household. Why did Director of Public Prosecutions Charles Leacock QC drop the matter against Barry and Barbara Dueck? You mean to say not even one charge could have been prosecuted out of the […]
Many Barbadians read the story that appeared in yesterday’s media Charges dropped against couple with some interest including members of the BU household. Why did Director of Public Prosecutions Charles Leacock QC drop the matter against Barry and Barbara Dueck? You mean to say not even one charge could have been prosecuted out of the five :-
Buying and selling foreign currency, to wit, United States currency, to people unknown outside of Barbados without the permission of the exchange control authority of the Central Bank of Barbados.
Charged with carrying on an international financial service when he was not licensed to do so by the Central Bank.
Charged that he held himself out as a trader in securities without being registered with the Financial Services Commission
Poor Philip Nicholls must be wondering what must a man do to have money laundering charges dropped by DPP Charles Leacock.
Who are these two individuals who made the accusations, Jean Delangis of 411 St Peter’s Bay, Road View, St Peter and Robert Richardson of 10 Forest Hills, Royal Westmoreland, St James?
Did they ever attend court when the case was called multiple times?
Did they withdraw their complaint?
If they did and as the complainants in this case did they have to pay court costs and also for the resources expended by the court, police, prison etc and taxpayers of Barbados?
Did they use the Barbados court system and prosecutors with an accusation of theft for their own personal vindictive purposes?
Was the prosecution duped into bringing these charges on their behalf and is there a case of negligence/incompetence to be cited?
Has or does anyone in the prosecutors office ever golf and socialise with either of the theft accusers Jean Delangis and or Robert Richardson?
Were some of the charges like money laundering, buying and selling foreign currency etc. simply “trumped up” without any basis whatsoever in law and would have been clear to any first year law student?
Can we expect a peer review of this case?
How about a careful analysis by the respectable traditional local media.
CLICO’s Leroy Parris approved a payment to Thompson & Associates on a false invoice
The Deloitte CLICO Forensic Report exposed to the world that a cheque for 3.333 million dollars was paid to Thompson & Associates by CLICO for legal services rendered. The invoice to support the payment was found to be a ‘false invoice’. Maurice King (lawyer) is listed on the fake invoice as providing a watching brief in matters related to Abarco versus Grant Hotels Limited for $250,000. Maurice King is on record denying he provided the service itemized on the (fake) invoice.
Further, in the Forensic Report which was recently unsealed by Justice William Chandler, the former group financial controller, and at the time of the audit, President and CEO of Clico Holdings Barbados Limited Terrence Thornhill confirmed to the Deloitte Auditors the following – “He believed that the creation, approval and submission for payment of a false invoice to facilitate a significant payment from CIL to Mr.Parris’ benefit (via PFS) and to conceal its true nature was an acceptable transaction” (Deloitte’s Forensic Report p.14).
Barbados Underground (BU) sincerely submits there is enough information for Director of Public Prosecutions to ACT!
BU has been steadfast in its condemnation of the treatment of the two rape victims for whose assaults Derek Crawford was wrongfully accused and charged. BU has been unrelenting in its condemnation of the Commissioner of Police’s racist statements that suggested that the ladies raped could not identify their attacker because he was black. BU has roundly condemned the Director of Public Prosecutions for pursuing the matter against Derek Crawford in the face of statements by the victims that Mr Crawford was not their rapist. BU has called for the resignation or dismissal of the CoP and the DPP and those officials who so insensitively botched the matter. BU is unaware of whether or not the rapes continue to be investigated.
BU continues to follow the story – Rapists, Commissioner Darwin Dottin and the Integrity of the Evidence – of a poor Black man accused of raping two English visitors to Barbados. That the story has taken an interesting twist must be termed an understatement. Last week in an unusual occurrence for Court systems around the world, the two women raped appeared in open Court to argue that the man Commissioner Darwin Dottin says there is incontrovertible evidence they believe to be innocent.
To update this matter from the Barbados Court: the case has been adjourned until December 13, 2012 to await direction from the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Charles Leacock. BU sincerely expects that given the extraordinary harm this story is having and will continue to have on the reputation of Barbados and its people, that decision makers are giving this matter their urgent attention. BU would be very disappointed to learn that DPP Charles Leacock has continued his weekend routine of being on the golf course at Sandy Lane or Westmorland when his urgent feedback is required to resolve this matter. Why the hell did the Magistrate feel compel to adjourn this matter until the 13 December 2012?
I have heard a lot of comments about the Director of Public Prosecutions giving Bjerkhamn a slap on the wrist for killing his son. Some have even called the DPP’s integrity into question. While I understand the sense of outrage that is being demonstrated throughout the country, I am not one of those that would jump on the bandwagon without a clear understanding of what transpired.
Persons who have been critical of the DPP’s actions in this case clearly do not know or do not understand the procedure in Barbados. It would appear that their understanding of the law is being influenced by American television programmes. The first problem for the DPP is that his office does not have an investigative arm. He has to rely on the Police to investigate cases and then they would forward their findings to him so that he can decide whether or not to file a charge. The public does not know what is in the police report, so the DPP could very well be taking some undeserved abuse for a situation over which he had no control. Before I can come down on either side, I would have to be privy to the police report.
This case clearly demonstrates that the evidence in matters like this should be made available to the public after the conclusion of the case, and after the time for the appeals process has expired.