Sturge: Rowley's attack on judiciary unjustified

CRIMINAL defence attorney Wayne Sturge says the Prime Minister's response to the escalating crime crisis reflects a strategy rooted in “hope and genuine expectation” rather than concrete action.

He also called Dr Rowley's comments an "ill-informed attack on the judiciary."

Sturge, who has over 26 years of experience in criminal law, made his remarks in response to Rowley’s December 27 statement addressing the nation’s record-breaking murder toll for 2024, which stood at 616 as of December 28.

Sturge will represent the opposition United National Congress (UNC) in next year’s general elections after he was recently screened and approved to contest the seat of Toco/Sangre Grande.

However, he spoke with Newsday in his primary role as a criminal attorney when responding to the PM’s remarks.

In his address, Rowley expressed “disappointment” with the crime rate, acknowledging that 2024 had surpassed previous years with the highest number of murders in the country’s history. He called for collective action from law enforcement, families and the judiciary, lamenting that criminals appeared to operate “as though, without fear of detection and certainty of timely, dissuading punishment.”

Sturge chided Rowley’s leadership on crime, calling his approach “an abject failure” and pointing out that the Prime Minister’s much-touted ten-point crime plan, promoted between 2010 and 2015, had produced no meaningful results since its implementation.

“Hope and genuine expectation is not a crime plan,” Sturge said. “Neither is casting blame on others and expressing disappointment.”

Sturge interpreted this as an admission of leadership failure.

“To say that the criminal element operates without fear of detection nor certain and timely punishment is an indictment on his own leadership and those appointed by him, and whose job it is to implement measures to ensure detection as well as timely punishment,” he said.

He criticised Rowley for failing to outline specific measures, timetables or identifiable strategies to address the crisis.

Sturge also took issue with Rowley’s appeal for families and friends of criminals to stop shielding them, calling it “out of touch with reality.”

He noted that the Prime Minister’s remarks failed to address the risks whistleblowers face in a violent environment.

“To ask for such assistance with no measures to ensure the protection and safety of such persons is to encourage such persons to put themselves at risk of harm and certain death."

Rowley accused some judicial officers of “pretending that the criminals are victims.”

Sturge rebuked this as “an unjustified and ill-informed attack on the judiciary” and warned that such comments undermined the administration of justice.

“This attack was clearly designed to bring the administration of justice into odium and contempt and achieves nothing else,” he said.

Sturge characterised Rowley as “an academic who is out of his depth when it comes to crime” and accused him of being content with platitudes while enjoying the privileges of his position.

“His speech, when examined, amounts to a meticulous and mellifluous blame game,” Sturge said.