Attorney General Allyson Maynard-Gibson is being cautious when discussing the issue of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) post within the Office of the Attorney General (OAG).
“In the Attorney General’s Office at the moment I’m in the process of looking at who is placed where and where they would maximise their potential,” the attorney general said yesterday while appearing on the JCN/Love 97 programme, “Jones and Company” with host Wendall Jones.
“I’ll be able to indicate changes if there are any to be made in short order. I would not like to make any further comment than that.”
In July 2010, Cheryl Grant-Bethel sued the government for sidestepping her for the director of public prosecutions (DPP) post.
The post was instead given to Jamaican attorney, Vinette Graham-Allen, who was brought into the country on contract.
When Mr. Jones questioned the attorney general about whether Mrs. Grant-Bethel would be re-hired, she declined to comment but noted that the veteran prosecutor is still on the country’s legal team.
“I really can’t speak for anyone’s state of unhappiness,” Mrs. Maynard Gibson said about whether the prosecutor is happy in her current post.
“I can say that Mrs. Bethel is still part of the team and she is a very productive and important part of the team.”
Prime Minister Perry Christie recently told reporters that he would personally look into the matter of removing Mrs. Grant-Bethel from the Law Reform and Revision Commission Office and placing her back in the OAG.
At that time, the prime minister said there was a “possibility” that the veteran prosecutor could return.
Last year, the matter was before the appellate court, as the government’s attorneys seeked to overturn Senior Supreme Court Justice Jon Isaacs’ decision to grant the veteran prosecutor her costs – 90 per cent to be exact.
The government – the Judicial and Legal Services Commission and former Attorney General John Delaney- has appealed that decision.
According to well-placed legal sources, Mrs. Grant-Bethell could receive between $1.2 million and $2 million.
The matter is expected to continue in the Court of Appeal this month.
