As the ongoing court saga involving Police Commissioner Henry Greene and Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Shalimar Ali-Hack continues, the DPP on Tuesday submitted a written response to a motion filed by the police chief’s lawyers which sought to block a rape charge being instituted against him.
Greene’s lawyers have until today (Friday) to respond to the DPP’s submission. Acting Chief Justice Ian Chang would decide on whether Greene should be charged after this.
Henry Greene
Greene has been accused of raping a 34-year-old woman who had gone to his office for assistance in a criminal matter. He later admitted having consensual sex with the woman, but denied using force or a gun as was alleged.
This confession was revealed when Greene, through a battery of lawyers led by Senior Counsel Rex Mc Kay, moved to the court to block the police from instituting the charge.
Justice Chang granted applications for the DPP’s advice to be placed on hold and to temporarily bar the police from instituting the charge against Greene. Justice Chang on Monday once again ordered that Ali-Hack provide the High Court with the analysis that led her to recommend that a charge of rape be instituted against Greene.
At the last court hearing on February 28, Chang gave the DPP’s attorney, Naresh Harnanan, 10 days to submit a detailed response on behalf of the DPP and Greene’s defence five days following the submission of the DPP’s statement to respond. Thereafter, the chief justice will notify both parties when he will give his decision.
Harnanan had submitted a supplementary affidavit to the court approximately half an hour before the proceedings commenced on that day. But that supplementary affidavit did not provide sufficient information to illustrate why the charge against the police chief should be instituted.
Chang said the DPP’s supplementary affidavit did not provide an analysis that detailed her thinking at the time she made her recommendation. He said it is to be inferred by the court that Ali-Hack arrived at her recommendation by a mere sufficiency of evidence.
But Harnanan told the court that Ali-Hack in her original affidavit referred to the facts upon which she made her conclusion. He then requested an opportunity to provide in writing all required information within 10 days.
Chang then warned Harnanan that it is not he who is to submit the analysis but the DPP. “I want the analysis of the DPP…,” he said, stressing that the court did not ask Ali-Hack to show sufficiency of evidence. “It is not enough to say you find sufficient evidence…,” the chief justice emphasised.
