The Director of Public Prosecutions has commented on the decision of Senior Magistrate Sharon Frazer to withdraw charges of causing death by careless conduct against Government Press Office Director, Dorian Pakeman. At the preliminary inquiry on Friday May 26th, the Court found that there was insufficient evidence to proceed with the case. This is after the common-law-wife of forty-five-year-old Dean Dawson, a resident of Gardenia Village who was killed in March of last year during the accident involving Pakeman sent a letter to the DPP informing that she did not want the case to proceed. That’s because she and Pakeman had settled out of court and she received compensation of 45 thousand dollars. Speaking with the Amandala newspaper last Friday, DPP Cheryl-Lynn Vidal stated that her office was not informed - as required - that the defense intended to make submissions of no evidence. Instead, she found out what happened on social media. She also expressed surprise that the police prosecutor offered no response to the arguments for no evidence. She thinks it would have been more appropriate for him to have asked for an adjournment to inform her office of the development in the case. She told the newspaper quote “It seems to me that the evidence was very clear. The extent of the injuries sustained by Mr. Dawson, the extent of the damage to the vehicle, the length of the brake impression on the road that led directly to the vehicle, and when you bear in mind what the speed limit is in that area, it is obvious to me and I think obvious to any right-minded individual, whether legally trained or not, that Dorian Pakeman was speeding and therefore he was conducting himself in a careless manner.” End quote. The newspaper reports that the DPP also took issue with Senior Magistrate Frazer asserting that there is no need to clog up the court system by sending the case to the Supreme Court, if the relatives of the deceased do not want to proceed with the matter. She clearly stated that it is her office that determines whether a case will proceed or not. Vidal holds the view that the matter was mismanaged from the beginning and now, she can take the matter before the Supreme Court and apply for a warrant for his committal for trial. At such time, she would have to prove that there is sufficient evidence to proceed to trial and that the Magistrate erred in law.
|< Prev||Next >|