DPP to give priority to IMPACS matter, backlog cases

DPP to give priority to IMPACS matter, backlog cases
Daasrean Greene

Newly-appointed Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) Daasrean Greene said his top priority is to ensure that the matter involving the alleged extra-judicial killings, and the backlog of court cases are addressed soon.

“Also, as we know, there is public concern about what we call the extrajudicial killings. I aim from today to conduct full investigations into these matters in trying to bring some semblance of order and see how quickly we can get these matters out of the way,” Greene said following his swearing in.

The new DPP said he will do his best to put things in place to take care of the outstanding matters facing the department, while saying that he is grateful for the expressed commitment of the government to provide support to the Office of the DPP with additional human resources such as a special prosecutor if the need arises.

Greene said he had confidence the team at the Office of the DPP could achieve a lot. He added that once he completes his assessments he will make recommendations regarding additional staffing for the office.

Prime Minister Allen Chastanet had that the appointment of a DPP was essential to address a number of judicial matters and was crucial in proceeding with the case regarding alleged extra-judicial killings by local police.

National Security Minister Hermangild Francis had also said that the new DPP will be faced with a “phenomenal task” of dealing with several high level cases.

Greene was given a one-year contract.


No posts to display


  1. There is no need for any haste with IMPACS. The US elected a racist, misoginist, and alleged groper caught on record and video tape, as head of its alt-right government. Who has time to deal with such doomsday World War III remake of Adolph Hitler?


  2. Ofcourse there is a solution to IMPACS. However the politics in St. Lucia is seemingly the most dominant hindrance. I can off the top of my head think of two. However i will wait to see what our best brains will come up with.


  3. There are several complex mathematical problems that have existed for centuries that are still unsolved. At the turn of every century a few of these are solved and struck off the list. The best mathematicians in the world spend their entire lives working on solutions to these problems; most of them dying without ever completing the problem. Thus leaving the problem to the next generation of mathematicians. But these problems though extremely complex are believed to have solutions.

    IMPACS however is not a complex mathematical problem and has a simple solution. The solution, all facts considered, is to move on and undeniably that is exactly what the majority of St. Lucians want. Why IMPACS has gotten the attention befitting of one of these complex mathematical problems is simply that some countries have decided what the solution to the problem should be and they want our country to design a process that arrives at that solution.

    And that's when things get astronomically crazy because there is no route by which IMPACS can arrive at the prosecution of any police here in St.Lucia for the killings that have occurred. So how do we solve an unsolvable problem? The truth is you can't.

    However you can always "redefine" an unsolvable problem so that a solution can be derived. And therein folks lies the solution, not in arriving at a solution to the current problem but in redefining the problem. Redefining the problem is an international political exercise requiring compromise between the "disciplining" countries and our small island. It requires that those "disciplining" countries take cognizance of the realities of our country as a small sovereign state by educating themselves to our political realities.

    But just like our politics can change with time so can the politics of these countries and hopefully those changes can occur so that the practical political solution to the much needed "redefined problem" can be achieved.

    However with regard to the new DPP appointment there must be some explanation as to why it's for one year only as it should be obvious to all that three to five years would be far more understandable.


  4. "Concerned Seafarer" where you may be WRONG is that the matter was in the hands of the former PM or SLP (whichever one you want to call it). The AG could have re-opened the inquest without involving the DPP. This is where the process went wrong. Remember that the whole process was also started by the former PM who could have decided which path any investigation could have taken including finding out whether the UWP was involved. Failing to do that it now becomes his baby, since he can only formulate a perception or an allegation that he was clearly unwilling to prove to the people of St. Lucia.


  5. Or that the previous DPP firmly under the control if the less desirable elements of the UWP set out to subvert and undermine in order to protect her friends.


  6. Our real dilemma in essence is that to have a judicial resolution to the matter there must be a DECISION to refer the matter to a judicial body. The PM or any Minister cannot make that decision since they are outside the Judiciary and the Executive cannot interfere with Judicial matters. The new DPP cannot do it since he will be following the wrong procedure in adducing new evidence; or else he simply would be reviewing the decision of the previous DPP which he does not have the power to do. Previous DDP's decision be reviewed through Judicial Review by the affected parties. This may also be untenable since the affected parties have launched no initial complaint. The original complaint seems to have been brought by the former PM (in his speech alleging extra judicial killings, death lists and references to complicit police, businessmen and government officials and appointing investigators). We are living in an exciting time, ladies and gentlemen and i say kudos to such a man with such brillance to weave such a crafty web. Not even he himself could have found a way out!! Like Santa says: HO, HO, HO.


  7. So is this a new or re-investigation into the matter? If so be the case we can now say that the matter firmly in the hands of the dogs now. The matter was referred to one DPP already who made pronouncements. The government cannot now interfere with the proceedings either by reviewing the decision of the DPP or by adducing new evidence.

    There is no legal basis for reviewing the decision of the DPP as the facts were presented to her in recognition that the matter had passed the investigative stage. So in fact there will not be a review of the case but a review of her decision not to prosecute.
    On the other hand if the government now claims that it has new evidence then this is clearly the wrong procedure, since the law only allows that a new inquest to be opened by the AG (and not the DPP) in light of such new evidence. Further, the introduction of new evidence would also present an an admissibility issue. The fact that this evidence was withheld (from the pronouncements of the former PM and AG) would also suggest that it may have been compromised, as evidence taken at an investigation must be under the control of the of the police at all times. Barring that control issues arise as to the integrity of that evidence. It also presents another dilemma since the late disclosure of that evidence presents a context. Evidence like information has context and questions has to be asked by the judicial authorities as to why was such evidence was withheld in the first place and why should they accept its late submission? If that issue is not addressed preliminarily it will be asked at the trial so as to ascertain the integrity and its admissibility as a whole. Another fundamental question arises did the party who withheld that evidence have any authority to do so? And if not what are the consequences, since it is an criminal offence to withhold any evidence, deliberately knowing that you are withholding such evidence to be used in a trial without having the proper authority to do so.

    So here is the quagmire that we would find ourselves in the event we were to follow such course of action. In any such situation the case becomes DEAD. The most important work of any DPP/Prosecutor is to envisage whether any matter has a chance that it can successfully be prosecuted and a conviction secured. In the absence of that they must strike off the case since it can be translated into being a malicious prosecution, an action where the state may be liable to pay damages.

    These are all circumstances which the previous DPP probably envisaged hence her reluctance and ensuring declaration not to prosecute.


Comments are closed.