CJ rejected application by DPP...
mistitled, thus constituting grounds for the dismissal of the application but that “there are other equally fundamental issues to be addressed”. The CJ then discussed whether the defendant should be heard and went into some profound discussion, including differing on one point from the CCJ in other cases. On that basis, the ruling notes at paragraph 37 that since the right to be heard goes to the safeguarding of the constitutional guarantee of the liberty, strict procedural provisions must apply. The CJ concluded on the question of this right that had she not ruled on the fundamental issue of jurisdiction, she would have ordered service on Jordan.
The ruling then looked at the merits of the case against Jordan, noting the elements of misconduct in public office. While disagreeing with the decision of the Magistrate regarding the status of Mr. Jordan as a public officer for purposes of the offence, the Court concluded that the evidence - some of which was found to be “inadmissible hearsay, and unsupported opinion evidence”- did not establish that the offence had been committed to justify the issue of warrants for arrest and committal. In its consideration of the facts, the Court ruled that there was nothing in the evidence to indicate that there was a clandestine sale of the property in issue, or that Jordan benefitted in any way.
It does not escape attention that the DPP had used her extensive powers to withdraw charges against former PPP/C ministers and now attempted to use those same powers to jail Mr. Jordan. On this point, it is worth reflecting that the decision in this case highlighted sentiments expressed by Justice Desiree Bernard in a CCJ case as follows:
“… this Court must be acutely concerned about the tort [of misfeasance in public office] being utilised indiscriminately for the settling of scores in a political environment and exposing public officers to actions that cannot be judicially sustained. It will be the duty of the courts to keep a watchful eye on this tort in order to avoid wanton use by a State seeking to combat the executive and administrative abuse of power by public officials.”
Hopefully, the Attorney General and the Bar Association will follow the suggestion by the Chief Justice to discuss an immediate amendment to the Criminal Law (Procedure) Act, Chapter 10:01, to prevent such an abomination ever happening again.