When a court of law, the court of public opinion or any tribunal that was setup to determine the guilt of an individual or group; makes a pronouncement of guilty on any person, who was brought before that body on allegation of wrong doing; it does not necessarily mean that the person is innocent of that which he was accused. In like manner, a pronunciation of guilty does not necessarily mean the person actually did that which he was accused of.
Every day, within the justice system, men and woman who are guilty of allegation for which they were tried, are set free on technicality. At times, they are set free because of their social standing, an attorney may intentionally confused the issue of the case, thus causing the rendering of a not guilty verdict or some other reason. In like manner, many innocence people are found guilty for things they knows nothing about; this maybe so because, a dishonest police officer may have fail to properly investigate a matter, or may have fabricated or falsify evidence, a D.P.P or district attorney, who for personal gains, may fail to lawfully disclose evidence that could have proven a person not guilty; he or she (the victim) may have had a lawyer that is from the scrap heap of attorneys and therefore, either through ignorance or a lack of experience that attorney may misrepresents his client’s interest.
In the St, Vincent and the Grenadines, February 2011, criminal assizes; a Vincentian fisherman by the name of Floyd Ollivierre, was taken before the high court, on criminal allegation of “Unlawful Sexual Intercourse.” A nine member jury found this man not guilty of the allegations that were brought against him by The Director of Public Prosecution. As stated above, not guilty does not necessarily means innocent; however, what was important; justice was served, it mattered not the outcome of the case, the fact that Ollivierre stood before an adjudicator and a panel of jury of his peers’ means, justice was served. For that is what constitutes justice; the victim got her opportunity to present her side of the story to an adjudicator and a panel of jury and Ollivierre got the opportunity to face his accusers. It matters not the outcome of the case.
The objective of the justice system is to uncover truth and ensure wrong is appropriately dealt with. Because the justice system is imperfect, the working of the process is what we have confidence in; but when that process is prevented or hampered from working, then justice is/was denied.
What was interesting, the Director of Public Prosecution spoke to the press about this case ( the matter in which Ollivierre’s was involved), disappointed that once again he and his office messed up what was to be a slam dunk case D.P.P Williams said, “The prosecutions neither won nor lost, the prosecution are there to present the facts.” Before I expose the hypocrisy of Colin's statement, let me teach Colin Williams something he would not have learnt in law school: evidences are not and should not be considered facts; they are findings, the fact may be hidden within the findings or evidence, and some of the findings may be factual but they are not considered or refer to as facts. In most instances the facts are not clearly known, hence the reason the Magistrates, juries, judges and tribunal meet and hear findings/evidence and they do so in order to try and ascertain or determine what the facts are. Before you begin to write your reply to this point, answer this question: can two parties present opposite or contrary findings, about the same matter and both parties’ present facts? Totally impossible,
The remarks that were made by Colin Williams the director of public prosecution are very interesting and they caused a few questions to pop up into my head.
- D.P.P Williams, why didn’t you allow the facts to be presented before the magistrate on behalf of the Female Police officer, and the Canadian human rights Lawyer who filed criminal charges, alleging criminal wrongs were inflicted on them by Ralph E. Gonsalves?
- Colin why didn’t you allow the facts against Ralph E. Gonsalves to be heard in the Civil Court?
Mr. Colin Williams, The director of public prosecution also said, he expected a different verdict giving his reading of the prosecution's case. Colin you as a trained lawyer and the director of public prosecution for many years now; should at lease know that you cannot expect a particular outcome of any matter base on your reading of the prosecution's, but you must read the defence case also; then analyse the gravity of the evidence/findings that was presented and the manner in which they were presented. It is only then you can give an informed professional opinion base on your knowledge of the law and the way the particular piece of law, ought to be applied base on the matter that is being heard.
There are some other questions I will like to get answers for, I also hope the D.P.P Colin Williams will take the time to answer these questions in the context of this article taking into account his quotes.
- Mr. D.P.P does that mean your professional opinion was wrong?
- Does this means, your opinion of what constitutes "burden of proof," the type and the gravity of evidence that is need to secure a conviction; are different from that of the judge and the four men and the five women that made up the jury panel: which was taken from within the Vincentian community?
- Colin is this the first time you have misread the evidence or the findings as it relates to a case you or your office have presented before the court?
- Is it the first time that your professional judgment has been dead wrong on potential cases that ought to have been presented before the court?
- Could it be, your judgment was dead wrong, when you cause more than twelve (12) criminal and civil cases that were filed by private citizen, against Prime Minister Ralph Gonsalves, to be thrown out of the Magistrate court?
- And why didn’t you allow the private prosecutors to present the facts before the magistrate
