DDP appealing No-Case decision for Prevost & Power
Prevost and Power, who were allegedly linked to missing money while they were executing search operations while on police duty between January 2012 to July 2014, had been found not guilty in the High Court on March 14, 2022, after a No-Case Submission was upheld in the retrial of the two interdicted officers.
Appeal filed on March 18, 2022
The Office of the DDP, in a press release on March 18, 2022, said it had filed an appeal against the decision of Judge Williams.
The Crown's case was led by UK national Mr John Black, QC, who has already lost a few cases in the VI.
Mr Prevost was represented by Attorney Terrence Williams while Mr Power was represented by Attorney Mr Israel Bruce.
‘Crown has right to appeal’- Office of DDP
Meanwhile, the Office of the DDP said the Crown has the right to appeal such a decision under the Criminal Procedure Ordinance Cap 18 (as amended).
“The Crown appeals the decision of the Learned Trial Judge on the ground that the decision was fundamentally incorrect in law, amongst other grounds of Appeal,” the press release stated.
.png)
.png)
.png)
Follow Us On
26 Responses to “DDP appealing No-Case decision for Prevost & Power”
Every week you are in the news and with inaccurate information. First you said they were charged with theft and conspiracy now you’re saying a sole count.
Is it your intention to try this case in the public domain with all these press releases?
We understand you might be reeling from that hard loss but that’s what happens when you didn’t even have the decency to appear in court for the entire trial, as you were MIA.
Why can’t you send out a press release about the situation with Mr. Martin’s incidents
The bathrooms of the sports facilities need to be repaired. Our children need to be in school full time.
Please use that money to do these things instead of funding the ODPP to carry out what now seems to be a malicious act of revenge.
Quite frankly I’m fed up of the ODPP.
WATCH AND SEE THE OUTCOME...........................
IF THEY ONLY KNOW............................................
NB it’s persons you who are in-sighting that these two men be murdered, you a coward!
Why don’t you put a rope around your neck instead, the person who stole the money ratted and became a witness for the crown, that’s the only person who stole the money and he openly admitted in court too go look for that one instead. You are a blogging coward.
Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act 2006:
Section 51A-(1C) states "Where a person tried on indictment has been acquitted or convicted, whether in respect of the whole or part of the indictment, the (Attorney General) now-[DPP] may, if he desires the opinion of the Court of Appeal on a ["point of law"] which has arisen in the case, refer that ["point"] to the Court of Appeal with the leave of the Court of Appeal:
(1D) Where a [ point of law ] is referred to the Court of Appeal under subsection (1C),the Court of Appeal shall consider the point and give its opinion on it:
(1E) A reference under subsection (1C) [shall not affect] the trial in relation to which the reference is made or any acquittal or conviction in that [TRIAL]".
So, madam DPP, what is the intention and or objective of this appeal, on a [point of law]?
The Judge, after hearing both sides, in a ["no case to answer submission] ruled that the prosecution had not proved its case, and the Judge, on the facts,[DISMISSED] the charges!!
DPP, what are you really appeal on a [point of law]???
She further stated that “no person or authority can tell the DPP who to prosecute, what to prosecute, or what to discontinue; the decision of the DPP in whether a matter is prosecuted and how it is prosecuted is final and not subject to review or appeal”.
Mrs Scatliffe-Esprit noted too that her office is not an investigative body, it is a “prosecutorial body and will only commence criminal proceedings upon receipt of a case file from a law enforcement agency, and there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public's interest,” according to the SFC report released to the public by the House of Assembly.