Lawyer plans appeal over RCIPS procedural failure
(CNS): A magistrate has ruled against an application to strike out several cases of drunk driving over a procedural issue between the police and the legal department. Magistrate Valdis Foldats said Thursday that the DUI cases still stood despite the application made by local attorney Peter Polack to dismiss the charges on the basis that the RCIPS had failed to comply with Section 82 of the Police Law. A change to the law now requires every file where someone is detained or bailed by the police to be decided by the crown before it proceeds to court. Although crown counsel conceded that the proper process had not been followed in some of the cases in question, the magistrate said this did not prejudice the accused.
Following decision that the procedural issue did not nullify the case before the Summary Court, Polack gave notice of appeal to the Grand Court.
“Here we have a new provision piloted through the legislature by the attorney general requiring the RCIPS to take a certain course with files which was not done,” Polack told CNS in the wake of the magistrates ruling.
“The question to be answered now is whether the attorney general or DPP (director of public prosecutions) notified the RCIPS and if not why not. Commissioner Baines is not the highest law enforcement officer in the Cayman Islands nor is he a trained lawyer. He must expect a certain amount of direction from those charged with this responsibility and this has not taken place," he added.
Polack warned that his appeal could affect hundreds of criminal cases from 11 November 2010 until present in any case where an accused or convicted person was arrested and released on bail or detained in custody.
Section 82(1) of the Police Law states that: "Where a person is released on bail or detained in custody, a police officer involved in the investigation of the offence shall as soon as practicable send to the Director of Public Prosecutions all such information or evidence as has been obtained in the case."
While the crown admitted that in the several cases the files were not sent, since the local attorney made his application the RCIPS has now begun to submit files to the DPP’s office as directed by the law.
Sources state, however, that this has significantly increased the workload for the prosecutors, who now need to rule on every case as a result of the legislative change.
Category: Crime
If this technical point is a bad one makes sure that the participants pay every cent of public money wasted opposing it and remember these attempts to avoid responsiblity for terrible misconduct when it comes to sentencing.
Whay should our police and the DPP have to follow due process if our elected officials do not? The way we let Mac get away thigs he does is sending a message to everyone. The message says " We do not have to follow the prcedure of due process". it is the old "what is good for the goose……."
Two wrongs wont make it right…we all need to be concerned when due process is not followed, regardless of the persons/office
I bet Mr. Anglin's sacred Attny. is watching this one closely.
He is more likely to be watching his navel closely while collecting government cheques left right and centre.
Chewbacca lived on Endor. Does that make sense? And 57 variations thereon.
The point is being missed here. Mr. Polack is not trying to defend the accused for drinking and driving, he is pointing out the fact that the law is not being upheld and in order to have a constistant and fair judicial system this is a must. In this case, people will look at it as a guilty offender being let off of a charge but in a case where a majority of the public agree that the defendant is not guilty, Mr. Polack would be being praised for trying to make the RCIPS responsible for holding up the law. The public are expected to abide by the law, with consequences if we do not. The police should be expected to correctly uphold the law with consequences if they do not also.
Mr. Pollack, with all due respect, and I am not a police officer, but isn't this petty? It is my opinion that our society cannot get any better when lawyers try to exploit every little petty issue to prevent someone from being held accountable for their actions. Mr. Pollack, there are simply two issues here: 1) You client broke the law and 2) The police failed to comply with section 82 of the police law. That is two separate issues, but each one should be addressed separately and apart from each other. You client should be held accountable for their actions just like the police for theirs. Now ask yourself who has done the greater wrong – the person who drove under the influence of alcohol and jeopardized the lives of other innocent road users, or the police who charged them without Legal's stamp of approval? In my opinion, the change requiriing a ruling is merely a vetting process to ensure court time is not wasted with matters in which there is insufficient evidence. So using that to suggest that your client should not have to be held responsible for their actions just doesn't fit. But wait Mr. Pollack, let me remind you, isn't there still available to every citizen, the ability to bring what is called a PRIVATE PROSECUTION? That doesn't require Legal's approval now, does it? History has shown that when people get away with crime, they continue the cycle, thinking they can always beat the system. In the end it is usually some innocent person, and occasionally the offender, pays the ultimate price. Ask yourself then if that has made our society a better place to live in?
10:14,
Section 82 was written into law by the Legal (drafting) Dept. so they must have recognised that there was an issue to be dealt with. I would presume that a reason, such as say… selective prosecution of offenders by the police may be a good reason!
eh! wait, Chief is that you?
Hold their feet to the fire Peter…Don't give them an inch…you seem to be the ONLY attorney who consistently keeps pointing out the shortcoming of the RCIPS and it's leadership and their repeated refusal to follow the same laws and regulations that they brutally enforce upon the general public…I, for one, applaud you and support you…
I wonder if this will be the same defense used by a certain MLA who plead not guilty to the 3 charges he appeared before the courts for last week…
Yes, well done for trying to give drunk drivers an excuse to get off for being selfish dangerous child killing idiots.
Yeah?? Wait til it you thats standing in court accused of something and hear how the police never followed proper procedure and THEN lets hear you coming to their defense.
What?