Kent Pantry, the DPP, yesterday defended the rigour with which his office prosecuted the Crawle murder case and argued that political activist Danhai Williams forfeited his immunity from prosecution when he failed to give testimony at the trial.

He also left no doubt of his view that while there was an acquittal, the prosecution proved its case that murder was committed at Crawle.

In the same speech at the luncheon of the Rotary Club of Kingston, Pantry called for the resignation of Dr Carolyn Gomes, the executive director of the rights group Jamaicans For Justice, for her alleged misrepresentation of a speech he made in December reviewing the findings of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) in the Michael Gayle case.

After refuting point-by-point the claims made by Gomes in a December 29 article in the Daily Gleaner, Pantry concluded: “Dr Paul Wright, in a recent article in one of our newspapers, [Sunday Observer letter, January 1] says either the DPP or Dr Gomes is lying and who is lying should resign. I agree.

“Do you believe she will resign? The verdict is yours.”

On the Williams issue, Pantry said: “There is no immunity because the immunity has lapsed since he did not come to court.”

The DPP (Director of Public Prosecutions) later declined to tell reporters what, if any option, he has available for dealing with Williams.

Pantry holds a constitutionally-protected position that gives him complete independence on which criminal cases he chooses to prosecute and how.

But recently his office has come under criticism for how it does its job, particularly from JFJ, for its handling of a number of cases.

The DPP has, for instance, been under fire for how it prosecuted six policemen, including colourful tough cop Senior Superintendent Reneto Adams, who were acquitted of murdering four people, including two women, in Crawle, Clarendon in 2003.

Among the most controversial issues that has been raised about Crawle was the fact that Williams, an East Kingston-based contractor and activist of the ruling People’s National Party (PNP), did not give evidence although he had immunity against prosecution, possibly as an accessory to murder and attempting to pervert the course of justice.

Williams was expected to have been a key prosecution witness, testifying that he facilitated the provision of a handgun which the police allegedly planted at the Crawle death scene. Such evidence would have helped to negate the defence claim that the Crawle victims died in a firefight between the police and gunmen who were at the house.

Williams went into hiding and when he emerged claimed that he kept away because the police wanted him to lie at the trial.

Noting that there were persons who had argued that it was his duty to take Williams to court, Pantry insisted that was not his job, but the job of the process server.

Although he did not specifically name him, Pantry also slammed Opposition spokesman on justice, Delroy Chuck, himself a lawyer, for suggesting in an article that rather than immunity Williams should have been given an agreement for immunity on the condition that he gives evidence in court.

“If he (Chuck) understood what the immunity meant, perhaps he would not have made that statement,” Pantry said. “There is nothing known as an agreement for an immunity. I would ask, how would one be bound by such an agreement and how the failure to honour such an agreement would be dealt with?”

The immunity granted to Williams, he said, was for him to give evidence in the case. “The fact that he did not attend to give evidence would automatically cause the immunity to lapse.”

In lashing out at persons who made comments about the conduct of the case without being present, Pantry insisted that a strong case was made. He listed among the evidence presented:

. That one of the victims was killed after the police had control of the scene and after a witness had been taken outside.

. That a firearm was planted, which was corroborated by cell side analysis of evidence of a witness.

. Unchallenged forensic evidence refuting suggestions by the defence that the persons were shot in the driveway rather than inside the Crawle death house;

. Unchallenged forensic evidence that gunshot residue on the deceased was consistent with the shootings taking place in the room, at not more than three metres away from the victims.

. Unchallenged evidence that gunshot wounds sustained by the deceased persons were inconsistent with being shot in a shoot-out, but being shot in a controlled shooting.

“There was other unchallenged evidence presented by the prosecution, but I have just mentioned a few,” Pantry said.

In a clear indication of the adversarial relationship, if not personal animosity between himself and Gomes’ organisation, Pantry said: “It is interesting that I have not heard Jamaicans For Justice saying that the prosecution did not present a strong case. Perhaps they did.”

But Pantry left his sharpest barbs for Gomes and JFJ during his response to Gomes’ characterisation of his analysis of the findings of the IACHR in the case of Gayle, a mentally-ill man who died in 1999 after a beating by police and soldiers. He accused Gomes of “disgraceful falsehoods” in her comments on his actions.

A coroners jury and the DPP could not determine who was criminally responsible for Gayle’s death. Jamaicans For Justice took the issue to the hemispheric human rights body, and Pantry held that Gomes in her article misunderstood the body the commission ruling that held the Jamaican state responsible determining who caused Gayle’s death.

Said Pantry: “State responsibility is governed by international law and the responsibilities are different from domestic law. Perhaps Dr Gomes would be well advised to consult counsel on that matter. However, the advice may fall on deaf ears since she recently challenged a judge in directions in law.”