Bradley Raises Concerns Over Planned CCJ Appeal in Selgado Case

Senior Counsel Dickie Bradley has issued a sharp response to the announcement by Director of Public Prosecutions Cheryl Lynn Vidal that her office intends to seek special leave to appeal the Oscar Selgado acquittal to the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ).  Bradley questioned the motivation behind the proposed appeal, suggesting that it may be driven less by the pursuit of justice and more by what he described as a bruised ego following the Court of Appeal’s decision to overturn Selgado’s conviction.  According to the senior attorney, the Court of Appeal’s ruling was clear and firmly grounded in law, particularly in its assessment of the evidence and the prosecution’s case. He argued that appeals to the CCJ should be reserved for genuine points of law of public importance, not as a reaction to an unfavorable outcome.

Richard “Dickie” Bradley,  Attorney: “The Court of Appeal has found, three judges have found unanimously and after taking their forensic approach towards the transcript and the evidence of a trial. We have a group of attorneys who we have a chat group and nobody has said you know I read the judgment and he got a fair trial. None of these experienced people if you add up the experiences of most of the lawyers that have been in the organization you’re talking bout over a hundred years easily of experience of people who are in and out of the Magistrate and Supreme Court in relation to criminal trials. And they all said that it did not meet their standards and to suggest in any interview that the trial judge is an expert and the Court of Appeals doesn’t know what they’re doing that the DPP should have stopped that right there any suggestion to that effect. So I will offer and opinion. It is a factor perhaps of both things, the DPP genuinely feels like there is a need to appeal this case or it is bruised ego because it is only her and the Commissioner of Police who are involved from the very start in the investigation. They spoke to the witness several times and the Court of Appeal asked several important questions, one of which you can’t get Ramirez the witness to come and testify so what all did you do to try to secure that his written statement would meet the standards that are needed in trial. Nobody can cross examine a piece of paper. Entering people’s statements who are persons of certain character is risky and dangerous. The trial judge did a number of important things which were a part of a fair trial but did not do enough and let in evidence that should not have been let in and they actually make a list of several things which are in violation of the requirements of a fair trial.”

Bradley further maintained that the DPP’s constitutional duty is to act dispassionately and independently, and that repeatedly pursuing appeals after acquittals risks undermining public confidence in the finality of court decisions. In his view, the Selgado matter was thoroughly ventilated at trial and on appeal, and the acquittal should be respected.  The senior counsel also cautioned that framing the appeal as being “in the interest of justice” does not automatically make it so, particularly where the appellate court has already ruled that the conviction could not stand. He stressed that justice must apply equally to accused persons, not only to complainants or the prosecution.  Despite his criticism, Bradley acknowledged that the DPP is legally entitled to seek special leave to appeal. However, he reiterated that the move raises serious questions about prosecutorial discretion and whether the decision is motivated by principle or personal dissatisfaction with the outcome.