By Staff Writer
PORT OF SPAIN, Trinidad, Oct 15, CMC – The Trinidad-based Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) Wednesday dismissed an appeal brought by the Opposition Leader in St. Lucia, Allen Chastanet, challenging the withdrawal of customs violation proceedings against the Deputy Prime Minister, Dr. Ernest Hilaire.
“The considerable amount of judicial time and effort spent on this matter could have been better spent. It could have been dealt with shortly and no less justly,” the CCJ said in its ruling, adding that “the appeal is dismissed with no orders as to costs”.
The appeal arose from the withdrawal or discontinuance of criminal proceedings instituted in 2020 by the Comptroller of Customs against Hilaire for infractions under the Customs (Control and Management) Act of St. Lucia.
The charges concerned Hilaire’s alleged failure to produce a commercial invoice for a vehicle imported into the country following his tenure as High Commissioner in London. After mediation and a change in government, the new Comptroller of Customs sought to withdraw the prosecution, and the presiding magistrate granted leave for the withdrawal of the criminal case.
Chastanet sought judicial review of the Comptroller’s ‘decision’ to withdraw the case, contending that by January 2021, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) had taken over the prosecution, thereby rendering ultra vires the Comptroller’s withdrawal of it.
But both the High Court and Court of Appeal dismissed his application for leave to commence judicial review.
The five-member CCJ headed by its president, Justice Winston Anderson, affirmed that the evidence did not establish that the DPP had taken over the prosecution.
The Court held that the mere forwarding of the case file to the DPP and the subsequent participation of counsel from the DPP’s office in the proceedings were insufficient to establish that the DPP had taken over the prosecution.
The CCJ, which is St. Lucia’s highest court, noted that the DPP himself had never claimed to have taken over the matter, even after its discontinuance.
The Court further held that, pursuant to section 73(4) of the St. Lucia Constitution, only the DPP has exclusive authority to withdraw or discontinue criminal proceedings, but that where another authority institutes proceedings, those may be withdrawn with the leave of the court.
“Accordingly, once the Magistrate granted leave to withdraw, the Comptroller’s bureaucratic decision to withdraw the prosecution merged into the Magistrate’s resulting judicial decision,” the CCJ said, with Justice Chile Eboe-Osuji explaining that the only decision that is open to challenge is the Magistrate’s order, not the Comptroller’s antecedent step.
“Since no challenge was brought against the Magistrate’s decision, judicial review of the Comptroller’s decision was legally misconceived.”
Justice Eboe-Osuji also underscored the importance of clarity when the DPP assumes control of a prosecution, recommending formal written communication, public notice, and reflection of the change in the style of the cause.
In a concurring judgment, Justice Denys Barrow stressed the illogicality of the reliefs sought. The CCJ said that Chastanet’s case rested on the premise that the DPP had taken over the prosecution, yet he sought orders to quash the Comptroller’s decision and to compel the Comptroller to reinstate the charges.
If the Comptroller lacked authority to withdraw, he equally lacked authority to reinstate, with Justice Barrow cautioning against unnecessary consumption of judicial resources, noting that the matter could have been disposed of on the simple basis that the reliefs were conceptually impossible.
During the trial, the CCJ said a bystander familiar with the records of the case must be forgiven to see in them a tale of two titans, a former prime minister and an incumbent Deputy Prime Minister on opposite sides of the St. Lucian political divide, playing out their entrenched rivalry in the arena of the courtroom, all the way to the highest courts of the jurisdiction.
The CCJ also noted that the facts of this case generated significant debate about the operation of section 73(2)(b) of the Constitution of St. Lucia.
It said that the provision gives the DPP the power ‘to take over and continue any such criminal proceedings that have been instituted or undertaken by any other person or authority’
“As was found by the courts below and this Court, the evidence in the case falls short of establishing that the DPP had taken over the Hilaire prosecution before its withdrawal, notwithstanding that the Comptroller wrote a letter dated 18 January 2021 to the DPP informing of the case and transmitting the case file for ‘information and onward prosecution’, which letter was not (according to the evidence) answered by the DPP.
“The claim that the DPP had taken over the case was not improved by evidence that counsel from the DPP’s office had appeared in both the case and the associated mediation,” the CCJ added
“This case has thus brought to the fore the need to ensure clarity whenever the DPP takes over and continues any prosecution that was instituted or undertaken by any other person or authority.”
It said that such clarity can be signalled by the following measures amongst others: (a) formal communication to the person or other authority that instituted the criminal proceeding, clearly indicating that the DPP has taken over and continued the prosecution; (b) formal announcement to the public on similar terms as above; and, (c) reflection of the change in the style of cause of the case, as appropriate and as permitted by applicable law and prescribed legal procedure.
CMC/af/ir/2025
