Fast Eddie,

I promised myself I would go back here..but here I am!

You mentioned 101 in policing – and I will try and follow on from that…

In all cases the basics to prove are 1) an offence in law was committed and 2) the accused committed the offence – pretty simple – so far!

The Police gather evidence – real (physical), documentary – witness accounts etc.

They are trying to establish if there is evidence to support that an offence was committed and that the accused committed the offence or that no offence was committed or that the accused did not commit the offence.

It is important (but often missed!)  to note that any police investigation have and do rightly clear people of false and vexatious allegations!

If there is sufficient evidence to raise a charge – (Prima facie evidence) then a file of the evidence is completed and forwarded for the directions and approval of the Director of Public Prosecutions – at the time of the instant case – this role was held by the then Attorney General.

It is the sole responsibility of the office of the Director of Public Prosections to lay the charges – period – the end – over and out!

Many times the Prosecutors agree with the investigation and suggested charges of the Police – many times they don’t. They can ask for the case to have more work done in certain areas, to not lay any charges or to lay charges that only seem to make sense to them and god only knows who! (No offence most (not all) of them are very solid and capable!)

There is generally a good professional working relationship between the Police and the Prosecutors. The Prosecutors have additional ‘tests’ that they apply to the case above what the police would apply!

The DPP lays the charges before the courts and the judical system kicks in….

The Police have really completed their role once the matter is in the system – sure they make sure witnesses attend, obtain any extra follow up or matters that may arise at trail – but the conduct of the case is now 100% in the hands of the DPP.

In the instant case – there was a delay in obtaining the DNA evidence from the Lab. This delay was brought to the attention of the Attorney General – the Attorney General laid the charges against Mundy and Smith – NOT the police – who as discussed cannot lay the charges in such matters – period!

Yes concerns were raised but they were dismissed and the matter entered the judical system where the collapse started!

I apologies to anyone if I have ‘botched’ this – I don’t think I have – I am trying to explain that there are clear and distinct areas of responsibilty for the Police (as the Investigators) and the DPP (as the Prosecutors).

It seems too easy to use the word Police when in fairness we should substitute the words Prosecutors and Trial Judge!

There were some deficiencies in the police investigation and evidence gathering which were correctly identified and have led to significant training of staff in the areas to strengthen the police response to violent crime.

In fairness none of the identified weaknesses were responsible for the collapse of this case at trail.

Hope this helps…sorry if it doesn’t

Piglet

I can't speak on all the possible changes to the DPPS - I do know the issue of immunity and or deals has been firmed up! With written records required etc!

Piglet

The individuals involved were never charged with rape, kidnapping, or a whole host of other things.  This has nothing to do with double jeopardy.  It has to do with an absolute F up on behalf of the AG as well as a judge that should have been removed from the bench many years earlier. 

As a parent, if it was my daughter I'm sure I could find people that would happily insure that the individuals involved would spend the rest of their lives in wheelchairs.  [As a student, I spent far much time in places where that sort of response was expected.  Ice picks are cheap and definitely cost less than a couple of tickets to Bermuda.  As a point of fact I went to university with guys who would expect to "help a friend" by making it happen.  No threats, no bragado.  That's what friends do.  Hate to say it but a lot of them would have been offended if I said no.]

"It has to do with an absolute F up on behalf of the AG as well as a judge that should have been removed from the bench many years earlier."

Not everyone thought so....

RG July 13, 2006:

Attorney General Larry Mussenden last night defended the way the Bermuda justice system handled the Rebecca Middleton case.
Speaking in the Senate, he said: “The result might not have been what everybody wanted, but the system was used and the system worked.”

This is almost more embarrassing than the botched case itself, ten years on and our AG was still denying anyone did anything wrong....

I didn't get that, seemed he was defending the entire fiasco.

The Government Senate leader said that everyone in Bermuda was "outraged" by the Middleton murder in July 1996. "It should never have happened," he said. "But once it had happened, the criminal justice system kicked into action. The result might not have been what everyone wanted, but the system was used and the system worked."

No?

http://www.royalgazette.com/siftology.royalgazette/Article/article.jsp?sectionId=60&articleId=7d6768e3003001f

Thanks Piglet.