Tweet
Supreme Court intervenes in Cuban lightbulb trial
DIRECTOR of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Paula Llewellyn brought the Cuban lightbulb trial to a pause this morning, with an order from the Supreme Court for a judicial review of the judge’s ruling that she provide written disclosure of a meeting she had with State witness Rodney Chin when he was an accused.
The Supreme Court ordered that the trial be adjourned until a date after June 17, the day the judge, Senior Magistrate Judith Pusey, must be prepared to defend her ruling to the judicial review court.
The defence called the move outrageous, stating that the DPP went behind their backs to get the higher court’s order without involving them.
They are now considering their next move.
Pusey and the DPP clashed at their last appearance in court on April 20 over the contentious issue of disclosure. Pusey had then accused Llewellyn of attempting to circumvent her ruling to make disclosure to the defence of a meeting with Chin, who was an accused at the time of the meeting.
Pusey had ruled the week before — based on an application brought by the defence — that Llewellyn submit her notes from the meeting at the chambers of Chin's attorney or reduce to writing her memory of the substance of the proceedings.
Llewellyn complied by sending a letter to defence lawyers which she said in was the disclosure sought.
But the lawyers complained bitterly, stating that the letter did not add up to compliance.
The magistrate had granted an adjournment so the DPP could review her position.
The trial is set to recommence on June 18.
The Supreme Court ordered that the trial be adjourned until a date after June 17, the day the judge, Senior Magistrate Judith Pusey, must be prepared to defend her ruling to the judicial review court.
The defence called the move outrageous, stating that the DPP went behind their backs to get the higher court’s order without involving them.
They are now considering their next move.
Pusey and the DPP clashed at their last appearance in court on April 20 over the contentious issue of disclosure. Pusey had then accused Llewellyn of attempting to circumvent her ruling to make disclosure to the defence of a meeting with Chin, who was an accused at the time of the meeting.
Pusey had ruled the week before — based on an application brought by the defence — that Llewellyn submit her notes from the meeting at the chambers of Chin's attorney or reduce to writing her memory of the substance of the proceedings.
Llewellyn complied by sending a letter to defence lawyers which she said in was the disclosure sought.
But the lawyers complained bitterly, stating that the letter did not add up to compliance.
The magistrate had granted an adjournment so the DPP could review her position.
The trial is set to recommence on June 18.
Comment