Magistrate warns DPP’s office to obey court orders 

Senior Magistrate Tammika Mc Kenzie has warned prosecutors in St. Vincent and the Grenadines that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) is also required to obey court orders and that she would not tolerate such disobedience this year.

The magistrate made her position clear in December as the court was scheduled to try Deron Bascombe and Romano Andrews for burglary.

When the matter was called, the prosecutor, acting Corporal of Police 817 Stapleton told the court that the prosecution was ready to proceed.

The magistrate, however, informed the prosecutor that Grant Connell, Bacombe’s lawyer, had not received disclosure.

Prosecutor Corporal Delando Charles then stood, saying he could assist the court, adding that when he arrived at the court that morning, he was given certain information about disclosure in the matter.

He said that disclosure for Bascombe and Andrews had been sent to the law firm Fredericks Attorneys & Notary Public.

The prosecutor said he had been informed that an order had been made by the court as regards Andrews for disclosure to be made.

Charles said that was done that day.

The magistrate asked if it was done within time and Charles said he did not know, adding that he does not wear a watch “and for good reason”.

“The courtroom carries a clock,” the magistrate told Charles and said that when she asked at 10:01 that day she was told that Andrews had not received disclosure.

Charles apologised, saying that he was not there at that time.

“I do apologise for him not getting it on time,” the prosecutor said.

“Or for breaching the court order?” the magistrate responded.

Mc Kenzie said she had noticed that the Office of the DPP seemed to think that when the court says something, it is not to be taken as a court order.

She said she had said the previous day that this would not be tolerated in the New Year.

“You see all these matters that are coming here, people are sitting down all day to be told that the orders of the court are not complied with, … I am not tolerating it in 2025.”

Mc Kenzie said she has no control over what the people representing the Office of the DPP in court write or do not write on their case files.

“I do my best to make a note of the things I say orally in this court,” she said, adding that she was going to aspire to start issuing written notices at this court. 

“Because it does not appear as if when I say something sitting from this seat that it is taken seriously,” she said, adding that the situation is such that disclosure orders are overlooked.

She said the prosecutor then comes on the next hearing date “and behaves as if it is my right to disclose today, even though an order was made to be complied with more than three months prior.

“I don’t appreciate it. I said it yesterday. To my surprise, it happened again today.”
The magistrate, who was speaking during the Christmas season, said there is a culture of everyone getting caught up in the festivities.

“When this court resumes in January, I am not entertaining it. I said it earlier, it is people’s justice.”

Mc Kenzie said she would have dismissed the matter if the prosecutor had been present in court when the disclosure order was made was the same one in court that day.

“I am not going to be doing this. it is wasting my time,” she said, noting that that day had been set aside for the trial.

“I have nothing left on my list because I expected that this trial would take the majority of the day,” Mc Kenzie said, noting that while it was December 2024, she was already listing matter for trial in June 2025.

“June is almost full. What is going to happen to matters when I set them for trial? the space is vacated on the day because disclosure has not been done.”

Mc Kenzie noted that Andrews had waived his right to disclosure that day so the trial could go forward.

“There are persons whose lives are in the balance; hanging there, waiting. There are persons who want to see their justice. What are we supposed to do?” Mc Kenzie said.

“… every time the Office of the DPP comes and says, ‘Well, I don’t have a note that the court made an order, what am I supposed to do about it? That can’t be accepted. It is not going to be accepted in 2025.”

Charles said he agrees one hundred and ten per cent with the court that its orders must be obeyed, “no ifs or buts about it”.

He said that he was not sure whether the previous prosecutor had made an application to have the two men tried together.

The prosecutor further told the court that as regards Connell’s comments about disclosure, he (Charles) had a note before him that disclosure for Luther Badnock, who had been charged with the same matter, was sent to a lawyer at Fredericks Attorneys. The charge against Badnock was later withdrawn. 

Charles said this was done on Feb. 29, 2024.

He said he did not know when Connell was retained as Bascombe’s lawyer but he had correspondence from Fredericks Attorneys regarding receiving the disclosure.

The magistrate said it was not in dispute that the office of the DPP had made disclosure to that firm.

“What is in dispute, what we spoke about earlier was the fact that on Aug. 6, 2024, Counsel Frederick appeared and she indicated that she is not retained in this matter,” Mc Kenzie said.
“On that date, the 6th of August, this matter was set for trial today. On that date, I said, since Frederick and Associates are not retained in this matter, that disclosure should be issued to Mr. Andrews in prison. That order was not met.”

The magistrate said she had shared with the prosecutor her note that disclosure be served on Andrews at the prison. 

Further, the court records show that as far back as Oct. 23, 2023, Connell was representing Bascombe.

“So, I do not know how the disclosure for Bascombe was sent to Frederick & Frederick,” Mc Kenzie said.

Charles said the note he had before him did not correspond with what the court had indicated.

The prosecutor added that disclosure is an ongoing process.

“You can’t say ongoing if it never started,” the magistrate said.

Meanwhile, Connell asked the court to dismiss the matter, noting that he had no disclosure even though he had been on record since his client’s arraignment.

“I don’t know how my name is seen at the DPP’s office, but you had a first-hand view of the prosecutor’s reaction to me. I don’t know what is fuelling this,” Connell said, referring to an earlier interaction between him and Charles at the Bar table.

“Whoever has anything in their craw, that is up to them,” Connell said and again asked the court to dismiss the matter, adding that the prosecutor had yet to apologise.

“… But again, this high horse is trampling on your court. I am the least of the apostles… He can see me as nothing … But when it comes to disrespecting the court, I would have a problem with that and that is where he must be humbled…

“… Those who are perfect must give an answer for their imperfection,” the lawyer said adding that unless the court begins to dismiss such matters, the prosecution would trample all over the court.

“I love humble pie. It’s not the best-tasting pie but I eat it all the time,” Connell said.

The trial was adjourned to April.