The Tribune

By LAMECH JOHNSON

Tribune Staff Reporter

ljohnson@tribunemedia.net

INTEREST on $50,000 in legal costs the Court of Appeal awarded former prosecutor Cheryl Grant-Bethell, who was by-passed for promotion to prosecutions’ director, was reduced because her bill was filled too late.

Ms Grant-Bethel’s lawyer Wayne Munroe accepted personal responsibility for the late filing in yesterday’s Appeal Court proceedings where he had applied for an extension of time.

The bill, The Tribune understands, does not account for the $400,000 cost of Ms Grant-Bethel’s legal battle in the Supreme Court.

The former deputy director of public prosecutions (DDPP) was locked in a bitter dispute with the Ingraham administration over her failure to be appointed director of the department.

The DDPP of nine years was instead promoted to deputy law reform and revision commissioner for a salary increase of $35 per month, a move she took as a personal attack.

Mrs Grant-Bethell filed an application for judicial review after the appointment was given to Jamaican lawyer Vinette Graham Allen, who has since resigned from the post.

Senior Justice Isaacs refused to overturn Mrs Graham-Allen’s appointment to the post of director of public prosecutions. However, he noted in his judgment that the Judicial and Legal Services Commission “failed to treat her (Ms Grant-Bethel) fairly and that the advice tendered to the governor-general was flawed because the JLSC considered material they should not have had in their contemplation when they purported to do so.”

The government appealed the Supreme Court’s decision awarding costs to Ms Grant-Bethel, but in June 2012 withdrew the Crown’s appeal against that order.

In yesterday’s proceedings, Thomas Evans, QC, counsel for the government, asked for the penalty on the interest of the taxation order made by the appellate court, but had no objection to the request for an extension.

Justices Christopher Blackman, Abdulai Conteh and Neville Adderley granted the extension of time, but said that the interest on the counsel’s bill would only begin from the date they submitted the bill of legal costs, December 2012.

Outside of court, Mr Munroe explained the reason behind the most recent order.

“In layman’s terms, you have three months to put in your bill as to how much it is, and we didn’t do that in the three months,” he said. “We did that three months later and so we needed permission of the court to do it late.

“Now they granted that permission, but they penalised us by saying we don’t get interest from June 2012 when they made the order to when we get the taxation. We only get the interest from whenever we taxed. So they basically took away already now, two years plus of interest on the money.

“The bill was for $50,000 but it was based on two counsel. You heard the judge say we have to make it for one counsel. So the bill should be in the range of $25,000 to $30,000 when that is done,” Mr Munroe concluded.