DPP Cannot Be Interfered WIth In The Hoodian Way Says Dr Francis Alexis QC

PR – ‘The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) in the exercise of his constitutional discretion whether  or not to discontinue criminal proceedings, by whomsoever brought, cannot be interfered with in  the way urged by Attorney-at-Law Mr Cajeton Hood, the Hoodian way’, says Dr Francis Alexis  QC. 

Dr Alexis was responding to the call by Mr Hood for the Prime Minister of Grenada to investigate  the matter of the DPP Mr Christopher Nelson QC discontinuing private criminal charges brought  by clients of Mr Hood regarding Mr Anderson Peters. Dr Alexis is advising Mr Derick Sylvester,  lawyer on record for Mr Peters. 

This Hoodian suggestion, Alexis points out, is antithetical to the letter and the spirit of the  Constitution of Grenada. For, Alexis explains, in the exercise by the DPP of his discretion to  prosecute, not to prosecute, or discontinue a prosecution brought by anybody else, section 71(6)  of the Constitution ordains that ‘The Director of Public Prosecutions shall not be subject to the  direction or control of any other person or authority’. This protective shield cast around the DPP  by section 71(6) cannot be penetrated in the Hoodian way, that of having the Prime Minister  investigate the exercise by the DPP of his prosecutorial discretion. 

Indeed, the idea of the Prime Minister so investigating the DPP is heresy to the Constitution of  Grenada.  

Not even the Courts would interfere with the exercise by the DPP of his discretion in the flippant  way advocated by Mr Hood. The Courts, especially the Privy Council, unwaveringly emphasise  that it would be rather rare for the Courts to interfere with the DPP in the exercise of his  prosecutorial discretion. The Constitution makes the DPP’s discretion wide and unstructured. 

What is worse is that, regarding the events about which Mr Hood wants the Prime Minister to  investigate the DPP, certain persons, with Mr Hood as their lawyer, pleaded guilty in Court to  every charge laid against them as to the violence, even grievous harm, inflicted by them on Anderson Peters. 

‘In all the circumstances, Mr Hood’s protestations regarding the violent mistreatment handed out by his clients to Anderson Peters are, therefore, entirely without any foundation whatsoever’, Alexis added.  

Sgd. Keron Regis 


Keron Regis 

Personal Assistant to Dr Francis Alexis QC