Appeal by Paul Llewellyn: PNP lawyers insist extension is wrong

The legal team of People’s National Party (PNP) members seeking to keep Paula Llewellyn out of the post of Director of Public Prosecutions continued on Thursday to hammer home their point that the government’s extension of her term was inappropriate.

The King’s lawyer, Michael Hylton, argued before the Court of Appeal that the main purpose of the bill introduced into Parliament on 25 July 2023 was to give Llewellyn a second extension to her term as DPP.

“If the court concludes that this was indeed the purpose, then we submit that it would clearly be an improper purpose…,” Hylton told the court, made up of appeal judges Jennifer Straw, Vivene Harris and Kissock Laing.

Hylton, appearing at the Court of Appeal for Phillip Paulwell and Peter Bunting, argued that the introduction of Section 2(2) of the Constitution to extend Llewellyn’s term was an attempt by Parliament to circumvent the process after the Public Service Commission (PSC) ) refused to grant Llewellyn a second extension in February 2023.

He said the PSC had informed Llewellyn that the second extension could not be granted because the Prime Minister had sought legal advice on the matter and was told an additional term would be unconstitutional.

Hylton said there are provisions in the Constitution relating to the extension of the term of office and the court will have to consider whether Parliament’s decision to introduce section 2(2) affects other provisions.

The Full Court of the Supreme Court had struck down Article 2(2) in April this year as unconstitutional.

The appeal was brought by Jamaica’s attorney general, who is seeking to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision.

In his response to Hylton’s argument, the king’s counsel, Ransford Braham, mainly sought to refute the argument of incorrect purpose.

“In this case the amendment made is consistent with the Constitution,” Braham said, citing Privy Council case law.

Braham told the court that the principle of improper purpose should be abolished because it “has no place in court today.” He further strengthened his point by noting that the Constitution does not define what constitutes an improper purpose, making the principle shaky to stand on.

Braham relied on case law and stated that the fact that a law is passed for a specific purpose is not necessarily incorrect.

“Even if the aim and intention was to secure the renewal of the incumbent DPP, that is not an incorrect aim – no, it is not,” Braham said.

He said that bills have been passed for decades to benefit private institutions as long as these bills do not violate the Constitution.

“…the fact that there is a benefit to a person in itself does not constitute an improper aim,” Braham stressed.

The King’s Counsel, Douglas Leys, responding on behalf of Llewellyn, said the government’s action was constitutional “on its face”.

He pointed out that Parliament had acted “admirably” in ensuring that the retirement age of the DPP and Auditor General was in line with the rest of the public service.

The case will continue at the Court of Appeal on Friday.