McKeeva Bush’s defence team claimed one of the alleged victims in his indecent assault trial was “tricked” into being a party in the court case against the former premier.
The case against Bush, a former premier and speaker of the house, last week was dismissed by Justice Stanley John, who highlighted issues with the “process by which the decision to prosecute was made”.
Bush had been facing two indecent assault charges, and two alternate common assault charges. The charges stemmed from alleged incidents that occurred at a government cocktail reception at The Ritz-Carlton hotel on the night of 13 Sept. 2022. He had denied all charges against him.
Following an almost two-week-long trial, that included three days of legal argument in the absence of the jury, on Thursday morning, 29 Feb., John granted an application by Bush’s lawyer, Sallie Bennett-Jenkins, KC, to discontinue the trial and he discharged the jury.
Bennett-Jenkins’ application was made on the basis of an abuse of process, regarding late disclosure of evidence to the defence by the prosecution and the measures taken by police and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions that led to one of the two alleged victims giving evidence.
It was alleged that Bush had given one of the women a love bite on her hand, leaving teeth marks, and had planted unwanted kisses on the shoulder of the other. Both women gave evidence in court.
One of the women, when she appeared in court during the first week of the trial, had stated in her police interview – a recording of which was played in court as her evidence in chief – that she believed Bush had drunkenly given her the love bite, or hickey, on her hand by accident, and she did not consider that his actions were criminal.
Bennett-Jenkins, in her submissions to the judge, noted that the woman, in a number of emails and a WhatsApp message, had reiterated this contention to her bosses, to police and to a staff member of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Those correspondences had not been disclosed to the defence until after the trial had started.
The defence lawyer said the woman – a civil servant – had been summoned to court, under threat of arrest, to be questioned by the prosecution on her recorded police interview, which was played to the jury.
‘Tricked and misled’
The lawyer pointed out that one of those emails from the woman indicated she had believed the video interview with police had been made for internal purposes and would not be used in a criminal prosecution case.
“She was tricked into providing an account which she had made clear she did not want used,” Bennett-Jenkins told the court during the legal arguments, made in the absence of the jury.
She claimed the woman has been “misled” by the police into making a recorded video of her statement, and was never told of the RCIPS’s intended use of that video, “which she had specifically said was not to be used in a judicial process”.
She added that the video was then used “to incorrectly treat her as a witness” in a criminal case.
The lawyer argued that the way the prosecution of her client had been handled meant he was unable to receive a fair trial, and called for the proceedings to be stayed to protect the integrity of the criminal justice system.
She stated that public confidence in the criminal justice system had been undermined.
“What clearer example of undermining confidence in the criminal justice system and bringing it into disrepute can there be but that a private individual who did not alert police to any issue and believes there is no issue, is lied to about the purpose for which the interview is being conducted,” she said.
She added that the wishes of the woman, who had made it plain that she did not think she had been indecently assaulted and had no wish to make a formal criminal complaint, “had been ridden roughshod over by those who have driven this investigation from the start”.
“What clearer example can there be of converting an individual who says ‘I do not want to give any evidence about this in a judicial proceeding’ into somebody who was brought to court because she is threatened with being arrested. How much more can the criminal justice system be undermined?”
Crown prosecutor Charles Miskin, KC, in response to Bennett-Jenkins’ submissions, insisted there was no evidence to show the woman was either tricked or misled.
He said the vast majority of evidence in the case had been disclosed to the defence, but that a small number of documents “had been overlooked for one reason or another, but they were very few and far between”.
Those late disclosures, he said, did not have an impact on the information laid before the jury, as other correspondence relayed to the jurors, as well as the evidence given by the woman in her video statement and in person, had made her position regarding being a complainant in the proceedings very clear.
Miskin said the woman had been cross-examined by the defence on a WhatsApp message she had sent to her boss shortly after her encounter with Bush, in which she stated he had bitten her on her hand by “accident”. He also noted that she had been cross-examined about an email she had sent to police stating that if she had thought Bush had committed a criminal act, she would have reported him herself.
‘Level of disquiet’
Highlighting issues with the “process by which the decision to prosecute was made”, in his ruling on Thursday, Justice John asked, “Would a right-minded citizen hearing the process used to have the defendant brought to court not have serious concerns?”
He said his decision was based solely on the disclosure of information provided to the defence and the submissions of both counsel on that issue.
“This entire process has caused a level of disquiet,” he said.
The judge stated that he would be providing a detailed written ruling, which would outline his specific reasons for staying the case, at a later date.
Before leaving court, the judge addressed reporting restrictions, which indicated that the media could only report specifically on his ruling and not the defence’s submissions that led to the ruling. The Compass has since received clarification from the court that these submissions can be reported.
The Office of the Director of Public Prosecution has told the Compass it has no comment to make at this time.
Chairman of the Judicial and Legal Services Commission, Nick Freeland, told the Compass, “We cannot comment on the Mr. McKeeva Bush case whilst this matter is still subject to further potential judicial process. However, we are fully aware of the public interest that this case has engendered and we will continue to carefully monitor developments.”
The Compass also reached out to Governor Jane Owen for comment. Her office responded with the following: “The Governor has noted the ex tempore ruling from Hon. Justice Stanley John in the case of MP McKeeva Bush.
“Justice John has undertaken to produce his full written judgment within the next six weeks. It would, therefore, be inappropriate for the Governor to make any comment until the reasons in the full written judgment are provided.”
Related Videos
