Dear Editor,
I sincerely support the view of former Attorney General, Mr Doodnauth Singh, that at this juncture of our history all indictable cases should be prosecuted by trained legal practitioners from the AG’s Chambers. Obviously he is referring to trials in the magistrate’s court. The former AG seemed to have developed a hypothesis on the premise that the police prosecutors have limited training in the field of law and are therefore unable to match skills and competence against high-priced defence attorneys.
I have no quarrel with that proposition, but I would like to ask Mr Doodnauth Singh when he began to entertain the thought he now adumbrates. Was it when he became Attorney General or was it during the 1970s and 1980s when he carved out a niche for himself as a criminal defence attorney?
He should recall that for many years the police prosecutors with their limited training in the field of law did extremely well in ensuring that many indictable cases were committed to the High Court. In those days the AG and the DPP had very little to do in terms of advice and guidance to the police. In fact at times the police and the DPP were at variance on what should be done or should not be done in certain cases.
The story is told of the late Carl ‘Bobo’ Austin, a Commissioner of Police, who did not have any tertiary education but who successfully challenged the DPP on his advice. Such was the quality of policing and policemen way back then that they were able to match wits and ability with any lawyer. In my opinion it is not a matter of the police prosecutor being legally trained, but rather the quality of his foundation education, his commitment, his thirst for justice and his belief in fair play and moral rectitude.
I have witnessed a police prosecutor without legal training slice through the arguments of defence counsel with clinical precision, much to the amazement and admiration of the court, all because he studied his case, prepared his witnesses and presented his arguments and exhibits in a cogent and coherent manner. In those days the police prosecutor knew the Judges’ Rules, the Rules of Evidence and ‘Archbold’ – which was known as the police Bible – like the palm of his hand.
Today the police prosecutor and his witnesses seem not to know the difference between a defendant and an accused, or when to address the court by saying ‘Your Worship’ or ‘Your Honour.’ Indeed, if a police prosecutor can acquire some legal training he will be even more efficient, but for the very reasons cited by Mr Doodnauth Singh, he will leave the job once he is legally trained. It is my firm belief that what is required is a return to basics. The records will show that all police prosecutors who qualified themselves as lawyers eventually left the police force.
Yours faithfully,
Francis Carryl
