Dear Editor,

The Jamaica Observer in its lead story entitled ‘Right decision’, published on September 22, reported that, “Marisa Dalrymple-Philibert bowed to public pressure by tendering her resignation as Speaker of the House of Representatives and Member of Parliament.”

This is as a result of the eight charges against her — four for breaching the Parliament (Integrity of Members) Act and four for breaching the Integrity Commission Act. The Integrity Commission investigation report states she had failed to declare in her statutory filings a motor vehicle she had purchased through a concession afforded to legislators.

Dalrymple-Philibert’s resignation is hailed as the right decision, choosing from all the options that seem right for herself, the Government, and the country in relation to the Integrity Commission investigation report and recommendation for criminal charges. Stepping down is not an admission of guilt. The resignation was a personal decision, free from bias, emotion, or external pressure — the sword of Damocles that hangs precariously over the head of all who are entrusted with high authority.

A politician’s functions are not always a joyride or an easy journey at the best of times. How and where to deploy their talents and their assets and whom they may employ to help carry out their responsibilities can never be defined so long as it is not illegal.

The accusation in this case is an omission, a failing to declare a motor vehicle acquired with the assistance of, not through, a concession to which she was legally entitled. She was not hiding the vehicle, it was openly used, licensed, and insured for all to see, neither did she deny the concession she enjoyed as a legislator. Sourcing and using the facilities to accommodate what at times seems a thankless undertaking can bring jealousy that distorts motivation.

It is fair to say not all conduct in breach of rules for behaviour in public office are punishable as crime. It may be argued no mens rea is necessary for absolute offences other than knowingly and deliberately doing what is prohibited. It is not the same for an omission, not doing something that the law explicitly requires to be done. This failure requires an evil intent in order to convict a particular defendant of a particular crime, especially when the omission can be easily corrected without any damage being done.

The Parliament (Integrity of Members) Act is to prevent crime not create crime. Only a bad law can invent a predicament of crime from an omission that is a failure to declare, and nothing more, a benefit or the result of a benefit an accused person is legally entitled to enjoy or make it a matter of integrity or lack thereof without something more in the accusation.

The prosecution will have difficulty proving the mens rea, an evil intent or wrongful enrichment, for the explicit charges or any other offence identified in the report. The real problem is the allegations may serve to arouse public opinion to something sinister by implication.

The consequences of Dalrymple-Philibert’s resignation as Member of Parliament and speaker because of the Integrity Commission investigation report accusing her of failure to declare a motor vehicle and nothing more — dreadful as they are for her reputation and the interest of the people she represents — are not as deadly compared to what Socrates endured from his predicament of being wrongfully accused.

According to David Bowles in Wrongfully Accused: The Political Motivations Behind Socrates’ Execution, Socrates’ execution by the Athenians is not caused by the explicit charges of impiety and corrupting the youth but rather by implicit political motivations which come to a head in 399 B C E.

After more than 2,000 years of politics — the more things change, the more they remain the same.

Frank Phipps, King’s Counsel

frank.phipps@yahoo.com