Judiciary says it could not override ODPP decision to drop case against Trade Winds Citrus
KINGSTON, Jamaica — The Judiciary of Jamaica says it had no authority to continue pursuing the Trade Winds Citrus Limited (TWCL) case following the decision of an agent of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) not to proceed with the matter.
“A trial judge is under no legal duty to question or override a prosecutor’s decision not to proceed with a criminal matter. In our justice system, prosecutions are initiated either by the sovereign (via the ODPP) or by a private party through the granting of a fiat. Judges do not initiate prosecutions, except in limited circumstances such as contempt committed in their presence, in which case the judge acts in a dual capacity,” the Judiciary said in a statement on Monday.
It added that outside of such instances, judges are neither investigators nor prosecutors.
The Judiciary was responding to recent comments made by the ODPP in a Jamaica Gleaner article, particularly the assertion that “it was even more unfortunate that the court and the clerk of the court did not scrutinise/interrogate the matter more fulsomely or at the very least allow some time for the ODPP to intervene”.
The Judiciary noted that it was also stated in the article that the presiding judge “mistakenly took the view that [she] could not view the contents of the ‘mediation settlement agreement”, despite the court having authorised mediation and holding the jurisdiction to ensure justice was served.
“There is no legal or factual basis to support the suggestion that the judge should have interrogated the matter or facilitated consultation with the ODPP. The judiciary does not operate as an agent of the ODPP, even in matters where a fiat has been issued,” the Judiciary said in response.
It added that there was no indication that the attorney-at-law who appeared before the court lacked proper authority under the fiat and said once the attorney formally indicated that the prosecution would not be proceeding, the trial judge had no legal authority to pursue the matter or assume prosecutorial responsibility.
“The full responsibility for prosecuting the case rested with the prosecuting authority. The terms of the fiat appeared to confer full and final prosecutorial discretion on the counsel to whom it was granted,” it reaffirmed.
Following pollution in a section of the Rio Cobre that resulted in a lawsuit against Trade Winds Citrus, a non-disclosure agreement was signed between the company and the Natural Resources Conservation Authority (NRCA), involving the National Environment and Planning Agency (NEPA), in December 2024 to discontinue legal action.
The agreement was met with public outrage including criticisms from the Opposition and concern from the Government, and with mounting public pressure, the contents were eventually made public.
READ: Under NDA Trade Winds Citrus does not accept liability; faces no future lawsuit
In its response, the Judiciary added that it remains committed to upholding the rule of law, ensuring impartiality and making decisions following legal principles, while facilitating the efficient and timely resolution of matters brought before the court.
