When the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Paula Llewellyn, decided to offer no evidence against Rodney Chin (former co-accused with Member of Parliament Kern Spencer) and Spencer's personal assistant, Coleen Wright, in the Cuban light bulb scandal - I wondered why.

It was then revealed that Chin was to testify for the Crown against Spencer and Wright. The DPP dispelled rumblings that Chin was coerced when she revealed, "It was counsel for Mr Chin that approached the Crown".

And, more recently, in the outrageous case of accused fake cop (Courtney Grayson), the DPP entered a nolle prosequi submission (which is neither an acquittal nor a bar to proceed with any action in the future but an entry not to proceed any further at this time).

Offered a deal

Although some speculate that Grayson was a government plant, it is more likely that he was offered a deal to cooperate - this resulted in the disclosure that he was recruited by (at least) 18 corrupt (Montego Bay lotto scam) cops. They have since been interdicted.

Both high-profile cases reeked of plea agreements but, we currently have no such thing in statute law.

The Criminal Justice (Plea Negotiations And Agreements) Act 2005 has been vetted and passed by the Lower and Upper Houses of Parliament but has not been gazetted and, therefore, cannot be implemented.

However, within our Constitution, under 'Establishment of office and functions of Director of Public Prosecutions', section 94 - 3 (c), the DPP has the right to "discontinue at any stage before judgement is delivered any such criminal proceedings instituted or undertaken by himself or any other person or authority".

Obviously, the DPP wisely opted to use the power invested in her office to obtain the cooperation of a lesser party in order to prosecute the bigger one(s).

This may work very well under these particular circumstances but it makes me uneasy since all this is occurring outside the stringent safeguards, checks and balances that the plea-bargaining act offers. Under 'Contents of Plea Agreement' within the act, there are 26 stipulated points that must be addressed before a plea agreement can be finalised, signed and presented before the court.

These include the usual court-required identification numbers, establishment of personal identity, the plea, the offence, the maximum penalty (plea agreements will usually allow for "two-thirds of the prescribed maximum penalty by which the offence would otherwise be punishable" and 15 years if it would be life in prison), several statements to protect the accused, specificity of the agreement with the crime committed, applicable conditions if the negotiations break down and statements of full disclosure to all concerned parties (including the victims).

Plea-bargaining has come into its own in Britain but has been well-established in the United States for many years because they find it "indispensable to the system of criminal justice". More than 95 per cent of their federal criminal cases are resolved in that way.

Proponents say that it prevents court congestion, long trial dates, prison overcrowding, saves the sate money and engenders cooperation.

Better option

Opponents argue that intimidated and/or scared innocent defendants may opt for a plea rather than risk a more severe judicial ruling; that the unsavoury may offer false statements to indict others and reduce his/her sentence; that the victim becomes secondary or tertiary; that short-cutting the system leads to more recidivism and that the perception of light sentences for serious crimes may frustrate the police and citizens alike.

Plea-bargaining is far from perfect but it needs to be instituted because it is better than what pertains now.

Garth A. Rattray is a medical doctor with a family practice. Feedback may be sent to garthrattray@gmail.com or columns@gleanerjm.com.