THE verbal sparring Tuesday between two women we hold dear — Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Ms Paula Llewellyn and Senior Magistrate Ms Judith Pusey — represents a definite blow to our already punch-drunk justice system.

While clashes between counsels and the bench are neither rare nor unexpected, this one was unseemly and left us confused as to the real cause of the clash involving two highly acclaimed officers of the court. On the surface, neither seem to have a personal axe to grind in the Kern Spencer-Cuban light bulb trial which is ongoing in the Corporate Area Resident Magistrate’s Court.

Admittedly, we are yet to come to an understanding of the difficulty facing Ms Llewellyn, in particular. According to a report in yesterday’s Observer, the judge accused the DPP of failing to comply with her order last week to disclose to the defence her notes or the substance of a meeting in 2008 with witness Mr Rodney Chin while he was still an accused in the case.

The report said that the heated sparring escalated when Ms Llewellyn stated that she would make no further disclosure because she had already complied in a letter she sent the defence lawyers on Monday. The director further contended that she could not recall all that had transpired at the meeting with Chin.

Ms Pusey, insisting that a letter was not a statement, accused Ms Llewellyn of attempting to circumvent her ruling. The judge appears to agree with Mr Spencer’s defence team that the information is critical to a fair trial for their clients — the former junior energy minister in the previous People’s National Party administration, and Ms Coleen Wright, his former assistant at the Petroleum Corporation of Jamaica.

The DPP later sought and was granted an adjournment to May 3 to reconsider her position.

But, like it or not, the damage has already been done. We don’t question Ms Llewellyn’s motive, but we believe that she needs to be more forthcoming.

Her reticence risks adding to the perception that interference by politicians connected to the ruling party led her to drop the charges against Chin, who was jointly charged with Mr Spencer and Ms Wright. It also lends credence to the defence’s belief that a deal was offered to Chin — in the absence of any plea bargain legislation — for his testimony.

Without taking sides, we find Ms Pusey’s remarks to Ms Llewllyn on Tuesday to be compelling: “If I were you, I would have disclosed the information and put it beyond any shadow of a doubt.”

Our hunch is that the DPP knows more than she is prepared to tell at this point. She may have good reasons, so we await her next appearance in the case on May 3. Ms Pusey, in the meantime, is well advised to resist any temptation to assume personal animosity on the part of Ms Llewellyn.

With the prevalence of witnesses opting not to participate in trials and the lack of confidence in the justice system on the part of the wider public, our ministers of justice should bear in mind that no trial is about them. What is at issue here is the guilt or innocence of the accused.

More importantly, they must never forget that in every trial there are always two courts to contend with: the court of law and the court of public opinion, where perceptions are born of confusion.

A tracing match between two of the major contenders is the last thing we want to see.