DPP Pushes for Retrial in UWP Leaders’ Incitement Case

The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Sherma Dalrymple, has formally filed an appeal against a High Court ruling that permanently stayed the indictment of former United Workers Party (UWP) leaders Thomson Fontaine, Lennox Linton, and Edison James.

The appeal, lodged on March 12, 2025, with the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court, seeks to overturn the decision issued by Justice Colin Williams on February 28, 2025, which declared that the State had violated the defendants’ constitutional right to a fair trial within a reasonable timeframe.

Background: The Incitement Charges

The case dates back to February 2017, when the UWP—then the parliamentary opposition—held a public meeting on Kennedy Avenue, Roseau, calling for the resignation of Prime Minister Roosevelt Skerrit. Following the event, several businesses were vandalized, leading to the arrest and charging of key opposition members with incitement and obstruction of justice.

Justice Williams ruled that the State’s failure to prosecute the case for several years violated the defendants’ rights under Section 8(1) of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Dominica. The judge also determined that the delay was the state’s responsibility and that continuing the prosecution would be an abuse of the court’s process. As a result, he permanently stayed the indictment, barring further proceedings.

Grounds for Appeal: DPP Challenges Court’s Decision

In the appeal, the DPP’s office argues that Justice Williams erred in law by:

1. Issuing a permanent stay of indictment instead of considering alternative remedies such as an expedited trial or sentence reductions.
2. Failing to account for external delays beyond the State’s control, including Hurricane Maria, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the prolonged absence of some defendants from the jurisdiction.
3. Overlooking the public interest in prosecuting serious offenses, particularly given the alleged incitement’s connection to public disorder, property damage, and looting.
4. In conclusion, the prosecution amounted to an abuse of process, despite the absence of prosecutorial misconduct or any intentional oppression by the State.

State Disputes Defendants’ Claims of Prejudice

The appeal further questions the basis of the High Court’s ruling, arguing that:

• There was no specific prejudice demonstrated that would prevent a fair trial, such as loss of evidence or unavailable witnesses.
• The defendants contributed to the delay, with Edison James being outside Dominica for over a year and Thomson Fontaine absent for more than three years.
• The trial judge failed to explore whether a fair trial remained possible despite the time lapse.

DPP Seeks Overturn of Ruling and Retrial

The DPP has requested that the Court of Appeal overturn the High Court’s decision, allow the prosecution to proceed, and order a retrial. The appeal is filed under Section 37(2) of the Supreme Court Act, Chap 4:02, which permits appeals on points of law.

If successful, the case could be reopened, allowing the State to resume legal proceedings against the defendants. However, legal experts suggest that the Court of Appeal’s ruling could set a precedent for how the Eastern Caribbean judiciary handles prolonged trial delays in politically sensitive cases.

The legal battle is now set to continue, with both the prosecution and defense preparing for the next stage in this high-profile case.

This article is copyright © 2025 DOM767