"...I think questions of normal transparency rules wouldn’t normally apply to a prosecutor in such circumstances,” the Governor stated.
Questions continue to mount over the mounting legal bill tied to contracted prosecutor Sandip Patel, KC, following a string of high-profile courtroom defeats involving the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).
Premier and Minister of Finance, Dr. Natalio Wheatley, on Wednesday night, May 6 maintained that legal restrictions prevent the disclosure of the costs associated with Patel’s services, citing advice provided directly by DPP Tiffany Scatliffe-Esprit during a meeting attended by the Governor and senior government officials.
Less than 24 hours later, Governor Daniel Pruce offered further insight into why the information remains shielded from public scrutiny, arguing that transparency concerns must be weighed against the integrity and safety of the prosecution process.
“I think it is well established that public prosecutors or people prosecuting on behalf of public prosecutors taking steps to preserve their ability to fulfil their role without any inhibitions is absolutely critical and a cornerstone of any functioning democracy,” Governor Pruce told reporters today, May 7.
The Governor said Patel remains actively engaged in ongoing legal matters and suggested that normal standards of transparency may not apply in such circumstances.
“He of course has a legal status in the midst of active legal cases, so I think questions of normal transparency rules wouldn’t normally apply to a prosecutor in such circumstances,” the Governor stated.
While admitting he was not a legal expert on the issue, the Governor said considerations surrounding effective prosecution and personal safety were likely central to the decision not to release the figures.
“Consequently, to my understanding the position in terms of preserving the privacy concerning the funds being allocated to Mr Patel is a legitimate one, based on established practice and custom,” the Governor added.
The matter has sparked increasing public debate, particularly against the backdrop of several failed prosecutions and growing calls for accountability over public spending on outsourced legal representation.
Premier Wheatley previously revealed that Governor Pruce was present when the DPP outlined the legal basis for withholding the information. However, when pressed by reporters to identify the specific law being referenced, the Governor declined.
“I am afraid that would be a question for her [DPP] and not me,” he responded.
The Governor also refused to disclose details of the private discussions held with the DPP and government officials, insisting his position on the matter had already been made clear.
Premier and Minister of Finance, Dr. Natalio Wheatley, on Wednesday night, May 6 maintained that legal restrictions prevent the disclosure of the costs associated with Patel’s services, citing advice provided directly by DPP Tiffany Scatliffe-Esprit during a meeting attended by the Governor and senior government officials.
Less than 24 hours later, Governor Daniel Pruce offered further insight into why the information remains shielded from public scrutiny, arguing that transparency concerns must be weighed against the integrity and safety of the prosecution process.
“I think it is well established that public prosecutors or people prosecuting on behalf of public prosecutors taking steps to preserve their ability to fulfil their role without any inhibitions is absolutely critical and a cornerstone of any functioning democracy,” Governor Pruce told reporters today, May 7.
The Governor said Patel remains actively engaged in ongoing legal matters and suggested that normal standards of transparency may not apply in such circumstances.
“He of course has a legal status in the midst of active legal cases, so I think questions of normal transparency rules wouldn’t normally apply to a prosecutor in such circumstances,” the Governor stated.
While admitting he was not a legal expert on the issue, the Governor said considerations surrounding effective prosecution and personal safety were likely central to the decision not to release the figures.
“Consequently, to my understanding the position in terms of preserving the privacy concerning the funds being allocated to Mr Patel is a legitimate one, based on established practice and custom,” the Governor added.
The matter has sparked increasing public debate, particularly against the backdrop of several failed prosecutions and growing calls for accountability over public spending on outsourced legal representation.
Premier Wheatley previously revealed that Governor Pruce was present when the DPP outlined the legal basis for withholding the information. However, when pressed by reporters to identify the specific law being referenced, the Governor declined.
“I am afraid that would be a question for her [DPP] and not me,” he responded.
The Governor also refused to disclose details of the private discussions held with the DPP and government officials, insisting his position on the matter had already been made clear.
Community
Comments
Join the conversation
Your comment will appear after review. Keep it respectful, relevant, and free of personal attacks.