By AVA TURNQUEST
Tribune Chief Reporter
aturnquest@tribunemedia.net
DEMOCRATIC National Alliance Leader Branville McCartney yesterday criticised the Attorney General’s “erroneous” decision not to pursue legal action against former Local Government minister V Alfred Gray following allegations of judicial interference.
Terming the matter a “miscarriage of justice”, Mr McCartney demanded that Allyson Maynard Gibson reverse her decision and release the findings of the police investigation into the matter.
He suggested that it was not possible for both Mr Gray and Mayaguana Administrator Zephaniah Newbold to be without fault, adding that someone must be held accountable for the circumstances that led to the release of a convicted man.
Mr McCartney also took issue with the “flawed timing” of the Attorney General’s decision, which was released late on Friday afternoon.
“The decision, which was announced via a statement issued during the height of Junkanoo carnival excitement, was clearly an attempt to sneak the erroneous decision under the radar,” he said.
In March, it was alleged by the Free National Movement (FNM) that Mr Gray used his Cabinet position to free a man in his constituency, reversing the man’s conviction and sentencing.
In his defence, Mr Gray has said that he contacted Administrator Newbold only to offer “legal advice.” He denied that he attempted to sway the course of justice, saying he only advised the administrator that he had the option of granting bail since an appeal had been filed.
However, Mr Newbold told reporters that he released the convicted youth, 19-year-old Jaquan Charlton, outright “after an order came forth.”
On Friday, the Office of the Attorney General announced that legal action would not be taken against anyone connected to the matter involving Mr Gray, Mayaguana Administrator Zephaniah Newbold and 19-year-old Jaquan Charlton, citing a “conflicting nature of evidence”.
The Attorney General’s office received a report on the matter from Police Commissioner Ellison Greenslade on April 20.
The decision has led to calls by the FNM for a judicial review into the decision.
In a statement yesterday, the DNA Leader said it was Mr Gray’s own admission that condemned him, adding that his actions were clearly an attempt to pervert the course of justice. Mr McCartney said Mr Gray’s attempt to feign ignorance concerning his own influence as both minister and member of parliament for the MICAL constituency, was disingenuous.
He said that the Attorney General’s explanation was nothing more than a “carefully crafted smokescreen” that clearly demonstrated that Mrs Gibson – as a Cabinet minister – had a conflict of interest between executing the law and protecting her administration.
“In this matter,” he said, “both parties involved tell very different accounts of what transpired. The evidence available however, the fact that a convicted suspect was set free outright, shows incontrovertibly that the law was broken.”
Mr McCartney said: “If for the sake of the argument, the AG’s office found the evidence against Gray uncompelling then it would stand to reason that the Island Administrator should and would be held responsible as the final decision to release the convict came from him.”
He said the decision was disappointing but unsurprising, and represented another “squandered opportunity” to do the right thing and restore public faith.
He renewed his party’s call for the establishment of the Office of the Ombudsman, which would act independently and impartially in the investigation of complaints against government agencies, and provide feedback and training to encourage good governance and administration.
He further pledged that, if elected, his party would implement the necessary legislative changes to ensure the autonomy and independence of the Attorney General’s office.
Mr McCartney said: “The Minister’s actions created the perception that yet again, a government official has used his position and influence to intervene in matters where he should not. The Attorney General’s findings in relation to this matter have cemented that perception,” he added.
Comments
John 9 years, 5 months ago
Least we forget we have a 19 y/o "convict", who claims the charges against were false and that he received severe injuries whilst in police custody. The decision on this matter needs to be finite so that this man may know his fate. Also done in a timely manner so that his access to a fair and unprejudiced appeal is not impossible.
Sign in to comment
OpenID