DPP tried to restrict media access in Almestica and Smith court cases

Tiffany Scatliffe-Spirit

Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Tiffany Scatliffe-Esprit tried to file a request in Magistrates’ Court last week to prevent media from being present in connection with the “arrest case” involving prison escapee Jose Almestica and the woman accused of harboring him, Jennifer Smith.

However, after facing objections from lawyers representing Almestica and Smith, the DPP withdrew the request and the media were able to hear the allegations against the two defendants.

According to the DDP, his reasons for trying to restrict the media were security related.

“As your Honor knows, public interest immunity relates to the ban on reporting cases if they have a direct and negative effect on national security. Of course, the Crown, when making these allegations, for the For the benefit of the accused, his lawyer and the court, the Crown should give as much detail as possible, ”explained Scatliffe-Esprit.

“The point is, based on the allegations that will be read, if they are published, it will disintegrate an ongoing investigation where there are other people in general who need to be apprehended. This is not to obstruct due process against the accused because they will be present to hear all the allegations made, but for the sake of public safety, as well as the integrity of a live investigation in course, it is necessary, under public interest immunity, to restrict any reporting on the matter, ”the DPP added.

Scatliffe-Esprit said she values ​​the media’s right to report on matters as it is part of free speech. However, she noted that freedom of expression had never been absolute and that the sensitive nature of the case was the basis for her claim.

“For the Crown to properly and effectively bring all allegations to court and to enable counsel to properly follow directions at their stage; we cannot take the risk of reporting the details that will be disclosed, ”she added.

Justice would not be served if the public were excluded

Opposing the DPP’s request, Jamal Smith – Jennifer Smith’s defense attorney – questioned whether Scatliffe-Esprit would provide the necessary authority on the grounds for his request and whether he would be given the opportunity to raise a question about their request.

“Fundamentally, the interests of justice would not be served if the public were excluded. Unless there is a motive that Miss Spirit brings that shows that there is harm that can be done, I’m not sure in the interest of national security or the public policy reasons on which to do so. it leans. But we hope to see what happens and then we would like to raise our objection as there is a serious problem, in my opinion, of ensuring the fairness of the procedure and public access to this procedure is a means of make sure that happens, ”Jamal Smith said.

Ruthilia Maximea, the lawyer representing Almestica, also raised the same questions as Jamal Smith.

“We understand the issues at stake, especially when it comes to public deception. Conversely, in the interests of justice and a fair trial, we also join with Mr. Smith in requesting documents in writing so that we can go through them and make a decision in court, ”said Maximea.

I was doing the Defense a favor

In response to objections raised by the two defense attorneys, Scatliffe-Esprit withdrew his candidacy.

“I was doing my learned friends a favor. But if they have a problem with that, let’s go ahead and put everything in there. What happens, happens. I don’t want to receive letters from attorneys complaining that “this was written about my client… it was written about my client”. My client was threatened because of what was reported in the media, ”said the DPP.

This is not the first time that the DPP’s office has sought to restrict or censor the media with regard to public court matters.