JULY 17, 2014
PRESS RELEASE
Re: Reasons for the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Declining to Proceed with the Prosecution of R v. David Bruce Bicknell for Breach of the Corruption Prevention Act and Proceeding with the Prosecution of R v. Daryl Vaz, M.P for Breach of the Corruption Prevention Act
On March 21, 2014 and March 24, 2014 I received correspondence from the attorneys in the captioned matters inviting me to withdraw the case against their respective clients in light of the fact that a no case submission made by Mr. K.D. Knight, Q.C. on January 21, 2014 on behalf of Mr. David Bruce Bicknell in his related matter for Attempting to Pervert the Course of Justice was upheld by Her Honour Mrs. Stephanie Jackson-Haisley.
Having thoroughly perused the notes of evidence in the matter and discussed the issues in the trial with the lead prosecutor in the matter against Mr. Bicknell and Senior Superintendent James Forbes, as well as considered the relevant law on the issues pertinent to the prosecution of the matters existing against Mr. Bicknell and Mr. Vaz, I am declining to proceed against Mr. David Bruce Bicknell in relation to the charge of breach of the Corruption Prevention Act. I have, however, decided that the Crown will proceed with the matter against Mr. Daryl Vaz, M.P. for breach of the Corruption Prevention Act.
I hereby outline the reasons for my decision with respect to each individual. This course is being adopted in order to provide clarity in the public domain for what have been very high public interest matters.
HISTORY OF THE MATTERS
On the 20th July, 2012, a file was submitted by the Anti-Corruption Branch to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (the Office) for a ruling to be made as to whether there was any “breach of Force policy and [attempt] to pervert the course of justice by police officers and persons in the corporate and political sphere committed between April 9 and 13, 2012.”
The material submitted contained allegations of breaches of the Corruption Prevention Act by Mr. Bicknell and Mr. Daryl Vaz, Member of Parliament, and an attempt to pervert the course of justice by Mr. Bicknell and Senior Superintendent (SSP) James Forbes.
After extensive legal research and consultation, the Office ruled on the 16th August, 2012 that Mr. Bicknell and SSP Forbes were to be charged with Attempting to Pervert the Course of Justice and Mr. Bicknell and Mr. Daryl Vaz, M.P. were to be charged with breach of section 14 (2) of the Corruption Prevention Act.
The trial of the matter against Mr. Bicknell and SSP Forbes commenced on the 10th June, 2013. On the 21st January, 2014, a no case submission was upheld in relation to Mr. Bicknell relative to the charge of Attempting to Pervert the Course of Justice; SSP Forbes was found guilty in relation to the charge on the 9th April, 2014.
Both Mr. Vaz, M.P. and Mr. Bicknell returned to the Corporate Area Resident Magistrate’s Court on the 17th July, 2014 where the matter against Mr. David Bruce Bicknell for breach of section 14 (2) of the Corruption Prevention Act was discontinued and the matter against Mr. Daryl Vaz, M.P. was set to continue on another date.
REASONS FOR DECLINING TO PROCEED WITH THE PROSECUTION OF THE MATTER AGAINST MR. DAVID BRUCE BICKNELL
A person commits an act of corruption if he offers or grants directly or indirectly, to a public servant any article, money or other benefit, being a gift, favour, promise or advantage to the public servant or another person, for doing an act or omitting to do any act in the performance of the public servant’s public function.
Sergeant Llewellyn had a significant evidential challenge in Court deciding on the actual words that were uttered by Mr. Bicknell to him on the 9th April, 2012, which initially caused him to form the view that he was being bribed by Mr. Bicknell.
“Sergeant Llewellyn was then asked to respond by SSP Forbes. Sergeant Llewellyn proceeded by saying that what Mr. Bicknell said was a possibility because when he had requested the documents from Mr. Bicknell he did not ask for any money.”
(c) Sergeant Lewis said in answer to Mrs. Jacqueline Samuels-Brown, Q.C. in cross-examination that “Sergeant Llewellyn did not use the words he was uncertain. He said that the money could have inadvertently passed on to him with the documents in the envelope.”
Based on these factors, it is clear that not only would it be impossible for the Crown to establish the vital elements of the offence in respect of Mr. Bicknell (the making of an offer or grant by Mr. Bicknell and an intention to corruptly make this offer), but the credibility of Sergeant Llewellyn, the complainant in the matter, has been materially affected.
Consequently, there is no reasonable prospect of a successful prosecution, as in this case the Crown would not be able successfully to resist a no case submission made by the Defence at the end of its case.
REASONS FOR PROCEEDING WITH THE PROSECUTION OF THE MATTER AGAINST MR. DARYL VAZ, M.P.
In these circumstances, it is my view that it would not be appropriate for the Crown to discontinue the prosecution against Mr. Daryl Vaz, M.P. as it is for the court to make the final determination pertaining to Mr. Vaz’s guilt or innocence based on the material before it.
Sincerely,
Paula V. Llewellyn, Q.C. (Ms.)
Director of Public Prosecutions