Lawyers representing the government have described the Constitutional Court’s ruling striking down the second extension of the tenure of Paula Llewellyn as Director of Public Prosecutions as absurd and totally inconsistent.
The sharp rebuke of the lower court ruling was issued by King’s Counsel Allan Wood on day one of the hearing underway in the Court of Appeal.
Wood urged the appeal judges to reject the ruling and accept that Llewellyn’s extension was lawfully enacted.
Nora Gaye Banton has more in this report.
Justices Sonya Wint Blair, Simone Wolfe Reece, and Tricia Hutchinson Shelly had struck down the second extension of Paula Llewellyn’s tenure in April.
The judges found the extension unconstitutional, null, void, and of no legal effect.
The unanimous lower court reasoned that by passing the amendment, the Holness administration conferred a power on Paula Llewellyn that was never contemplated by the drafters of Jamaica’s Constitution.
The judges held that the framers of the Constitution did not empower the holder of the office of DPP, who they describe as a public servant, to decide the terms and conditions of service, or on retirement from office.
But Allan Wood is having none of it.
On Monday, he told Justices Straw, Harris, and Laing that the ruling issued in April contained totally inconsistent reasoning, had made a fundamental error, and amounted to a legal absurdity.
Wood told the three judges of appeal that he made those observations with what he described as all due respect.
According to Wood, once the Constitutional Court had found that the constitutional amendment increasing the retirement age of the DPP and the Auditor General was validly enacted into law, that should have been the end of the matter.
He says the lower court should have rejected the constitutional challenge filed by the PNP’s Phillip Paulwell and Peter Bunting.
The King’s Counsel says it is logically inconsistent to hold that the first section of the amendment was lawful, but then rule that the second part could not be legally applied to Paula Llewellyn’s tenure in office.
He noted that the lower court committed a legal error in determining that the amendment did not extend Ms. Llewellyn’s tenure.
Wood said if the courts were to uphold the amendment, but then look at what was obtained before the amendment in deciding what was lawful, the law would be in a realm he said he could not possibly describe.
Paula Llewellyn listened to the arguments intently, occasionally nodding her head in agreement with the arguments being advanced for her continuation in office as the country’s chief prosecutor.
The Attorney General is being represented by the law firm Livingston, Alexander and Levy.
King’s Counsels Allan Wood and Ransford Braham are leading the team on behalf of the government.
Paula Llewellyn has been granted leave to appear in the matter as an interested party.
She’s represented by former Solicitor General, Douglas Leys.
The PNP is being represented by the law firm Hylton Powell, with former Solicitor General, King’s Counsel Michael Hylton as their lead counsel.
The hearing continues at 9:30 Tuesday morning.
Credit: Source link