Latest update January 17th, 2025 6:30 AM
Apr 10, 2012 Letters
DEAR EDITOR,
I would like to share my views on the Henry Greene issue.
Firstly, I have noticed that the Honourable Chief Justice Mr. Ian Chang has come in for some severe criticism and flak from some very influential persons in our society for his decision to quash charges of rape levelled against Henry Greene. If those critics of Justice Chang had taken the time off and studied the decision made, they would have clearly seen that at no time did the Chief Justice actually say that Mr. Greene must not be charged. Basically, Mr. Chang asked the Director of Public Prosecutions to state her cause(s) as to how she arrived at the decision to have Henry Greene charged.
This came about after it was alleged by one of the attorneys representing Mr. Greene that the godmother of the Virtual Complainant’s daughter is a senior official within the DPP’s chambers.
I cannot recall the DPP admitting or denying such allegation, which to my conclusion has some merit. Situations like this we refer to as a conflict of interest, and it is based on this allegation that the Chief Justice was prompted to request the DPP to show cause(s) for the charge against Mr. Greene, because he had wanted to make sure that the recommendation to charge was made based on the evidence provided to the DPP and not because of sentiments, affiliations or other human relations.
What is important to note is that months before the rape allegations were made public, the virtual complainant had allegations being also levelled against her in an extortion case, and the evidence is readily available to the DPP, yet no charges have been laid to date.
My question is, what method does the DPP use to determine which case goes to court?
It must also be noted that not every rape allegation turns out to be factual. During a rape trial, the facts leading up to the act will be taken into consideration, as well as what the VC said happened, and the facts after the act had been committed. Those three aspects have to be taken into consideration, and in my humble opinion, based upon the merits and evidence, it does appear in this case to have been consensual.
I must commend the Chief Justice for his decision, because this matter was going to be blown away to pieces had it reached the trial stage and it would’ve sadly been another dismissal, which is surely a waste of taxpayers’ money and of judicial time and resources.
Many cases have been dismissed because of lack of evidence in recent times, e.g. the Treason matter, and it is about time the DPP stops recommending frivolous charges against people and charge based on the physical evidence before her.
Mr Chang, keep up the good work. I’m not too sure if there is anyone in our judicial system who is as versed with the Laws of Guyana as Mr. Ian Chang and we must not forget that Mr Chang was once the Director of Public Prosecutions (ag).
I’m also surprised that the Honourable Minister Priya Manickchand has commented so definitively on the Henry Greene issue, because if my memory serves me right, she had chosen to stay silent during the Bharrat Jagdeo and Varshnie Singh issue. Even when Ms. Singh went public with certain revelations the then Minister of Human Services chose to be quiet. If Ms Manickchand wants to speak on behalf of the women in this country then she should do it impartially.
Randy Persaud
Jan 17, 2025
SportsMax – With the stakes high and the odds challenging, West Indies captain Kraigg Brathwaite has placed an unyielding focus on self-belief and bravery as key factors for his team to deliver...Peeping Tom… Kaieteur News- Accusations of conflict of interest have a peculiar way of rising to the surface in Guyana.... more
Sir Ronald Sanders (Antigua and Barbuda’s Ambassador to the US and the OAS) By Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News–... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]