Pressure on prosecutors persists

ONE YEAR after Roger Gaspard, SC, laid bare what he deemed an “acute and chronic” staff shortage in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), there are worrying signs prosecutors are still under pressure.

On March 18, Justice Trevor Jones dismissed a decades-old case because of no state attorneys appeared. “There is no representation from the State and no courtesy of an explanation,” the judge lamented.

Days earlier, on March 12, Justice Geoffrey Henderson admonished two prosecutors after they seemed to violate their professional code by reacting to the outcome of a case. “I cannot put into words how incredibly disappointed I was by your disrespect not only to me as a sitting judge but also to the Supreme Court when you walked out,” the judge said.

Justices Henderson and Jones know a thing or two about the code. Both have been state attorneys, with Mr Henderson being the country’s top prosecutor from 2002-2009.

When we think of prosecutors, we think of courtroom dramas in which hawkish lawyers call the shots and doggedly pursue justice. But the reality represented by these recent cases – and many others – is that prosecutors in TT are on the back foot.

For a start, these lawyers face derision when an accused person gets off and, alternatively, contempt from doubters when there is a conviction. They are beleaguered, too, by factors unrelated to the nature of the job, factors tied to our grotesquely convulsed criminal justice system.

Justice Henderson said in court this month there are 1,618 indictments outstanding. Mr Gaspard today complains of staff shortages, but Mr Henderson made an identical complaint when he left the Winsure Building more than a decade ago.

Even if the 2013 Cabinet-approved complement for the DPP’s office of 137 attorneys is satisfied, it will struggle to keep pace, given the murder rate, not to mention the thousands of other offences annually. For once, low detection is a mercy.

Still, budget documents show the Criminal Law Department, of which Mr Gaspard is head, had its funding for “fees” slashed from $64 million in 2023 to $20 million for 2024. In 2022, the figure was $15 million. Increasing by $1.5 million is a separate item for “salaries.”

Such inconsistent numbers might reflect the commess over the reported expenditure of nearly $55 million for an empty office building. But they also somewhat confirm the dim government assessment of the DPP’s complaint last year.

But the Cabinet, which in recent times has called out reluctant witnesses, needs to put aside whatever differences it may have with Mr Gaspard and work towards giving his office a more reasonable chance of success. Or else all will be rendered a guilty verdict in this trial.