Posted on

DPP holds position on case


The position of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Colin Williams stands with respect to the rape charges he discontinued against Prime Minister Dr Ralph Gonsalves.{{more}}

Lawyers for the 36-year-old police woman who has accused Prime Minister Dr Ralph Gonsalves of raping her told reporters last Wednesday that they have sent a letter to the Commissioner of Police, which contains new evidence in the matter.

The letter, dated March 12, was copied to DPP Williams.

“I have reviewed the evidence again, including what is in the letter, and I have come to the same position,” DPP Williams told SEARCHLIGHT.

DPP Williams said that he has advised the COP of his findings.

He also expressed to SEARCHLIGHT what he termed some concerns about the letter.

He said that in the original letter sent to the COP on January 26th, the lawyers said that they had a notarized statement by their client. However, he claims that in this March 12th letter, which included the notarized statement, the statement is dated January 30th.

“So it (the notarized statement) couldn’t be available on January 26th, when the first letter was sent to the Commissioner of Police,” DPP Williams said.

Meanwhile, the lawyers for the woman say that they are willing to take her claim all the way to the Privy Council, and even the International Court of Justice.

At a press conference last Wednesday, the woman’s four lawyers officially announced that they have filed for leave to appeal Justice Gertel Thom’s ruling, in which she did not grant leave for them to appeal the Director of Public Prosecution’s decision to take over and wholly discontinue the charges of rape and sexual assault against Dr Gonsalves.

“The legal team for the (alleged) victim, we are one hundred percent behind her. We intend to exhaust all legal processes in this matter,” said attorney Kay Bacchus Browne.

Bacchus Browne and attorneys Emery Robertson, Sharon Morris Cummings and Nicole Sylvester stated their intent to take the matter all the way through the legal system.

They made a point again to note that Justice Thom’s decision had nothing to do with the evidence in the matter, but rather dealt with the DPP’s right to discontinue the case. (KJ)