TUESDAY, JANUARY 19, 1993
OUR
THE
"THIS PRINCIPLE
IS,
I REPEAT, OF FUNDAMENTAL IMPORTANCE TO SYSTEM OF JUSTICE AND THAT IMPORTANCE HAS BEEN RECOGNISED IN BOTH JOINT DECLARATION AND IN THE BASIC LAW, ARTICLE 63 OF WHICH GUARANTEES THAT PROSECUTIONS WILL BE BROUGHT FREE FROM INTERFERENCE. SAID MR MATHEWS.
M
OF
THE
HE POINTED OUT THAT DESPITE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BEING A MEMBER ROLE AS THE GOVERNMENT, THE PRINCIPLE OF THE INDEPENDENCE OF HIS
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR WAS UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED AND UNDERSTOOD WITHIN THE GOVERNMENT.
WAS
A SECOND ASPECT OF INDEPENDENCE, ALSO OF CRUCIAL IMPORTANCE, THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE PROSECUTOR FROM THE POLICE.
THE
THOSE
WHOM
THEY
ROLE OF THE POLICE WAS, AMONG OTHERS, TO INVESTIGATE THE COMMISSION OF CRIMINAL OFFENCES AND TO APPREHEND THOUGHT WERE WRONG DOERS.
ONCE THE INVESTIGATION BY THE POLICE WAS COMPLETE, THE PROSECUTOR TOOK OVER TO CONDUCT THE PROCEEDINGS, TO REVIEW THE SITUATION AND TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THERE WOULD BE A PROSECUTION AT ALL AND IF SO THEN TO HAVE THE CONDUCT OF IT.
"THE PROSECUTOR IS NOT ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE POLICE IN TAKING THE DECISION, NOR ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT, BUT ON BEHALF OF PUBLIC," MR MATHEWS SAID.
THIS
THE
HR SAID THIS SEPARATION OF FUNCTION WOULD ENSURE THAT PROSECUTOR WAS ABLE TO BRING AN INDEPENDENT AND OBJECTIVE EYE TO THE CASE PREPARED BY THE POLICE.
IN DECIDING WHETHER OR NOT TO PROSECUTE IN ANY PARTICULAR CASE, FIRST OF ALL, THERE HAD TO BE ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO PROVE ALL THE ELEMENTS OF AN OFFENCE.
EVEN IF THERE WAS EVIDENCE THAT TENDED TO PROVE THE INGREDIENTS OF AN OFFENCE, A BARE PRIMA FACIE CASE WAS, SPEAKING, NOT ENOUGH TO WARRANT A PROSECUTION.
NECESSARY GENERALLY
"THERE MUST BE A REASONABLE PROSPECT OF SECURING A CONVICTION BECAUSE IT IS NOT IN THE INTERESTS OF PUBLIC JUSTICE, NOR OF THE PUBLIC REVENUE, THAT WEAK OR BORDERLINE CASES SHOULD BE PROSECUTED," MR MATHEWS SAID.
A "REASONABLE PROSPECT" MEANT THAT THE PROSECUTOR DID NOT NEED TO SATISFY HIMSELF WITH 100 PER CENT CERTAINTY THAT THE ACCUSED WOULD BE CONVICTED.
THE PROSECUTOR MADE HIS DECISION TO PROSECUTE BASED ON EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE POLICE. THE PROSECUTOR HIMSELF DID NOT INTERVIEW THE WITNESSES EXCEPT HE MIGHT INTERVIEW EXPERT WITNESSES TO GET A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THEIR EVIDENCE.
IT WOULD BE WRONG FOR THE PROSECUTOR TO QUESTION THE WITNESSES BY CONDUCTING SOME SORT OF MINI-TRIAL BEFORE THE PROPER TRIAL BECAUSE
SHOULD ALL TRIALS
BE HELD IN A COURT OF LAW, WHERE THE GUILT OR INNOCENCE OF AN ACCUSED WOULD BE DETERMINED BY THE JUDGE, OR IN
SERIOUS CASES BY A JURY.
/"THE CONSEQUENCES