Detailed reasons for the decision to halt the indecent assault case against McKeeva Bush are being kept under wraps until the conclusion of a second criminal case involving the former premier.
Justice Stanley John halted the case two weeks into a highly public Grand Court trial in February, ruling that there had been an ‘abuse of process’ on the part of the prosecution.
In brief remarks explaining his decision, John highlighted concerns with the way the decision was taken to prosecute Bush, also a former speaker of the house.
“The court is… concerned with the process, and I stress, the process by which the decision to prosecute was made,” he said.
“I pose this question rhetorically. Would a right-minded citizen hearing the process used to have the defendant brought before the court … not have serious concerns?”
Delivering those initial remarks on 28 Feb., John indicated that this decision was based on the disclosure information provided to the defence and that “detailed reasons will be given in writing at a later date”.
Last week, the courts confirmed that John had delivered his full judgment but that this is now subject to an embargo.
“Upon circulation, a request was made to embargo the judgment to prevent prejudice in the second trial,” a Judicial Administration spokesperson said.
“Justice John granted the embargo in the interest of justice. Once the upcoming trial, scheduled to take place on June 24 has concluded, the judgments will become available.”
The Compass understands the request was made by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. However, there is no public record of the request, there was no public hearing and no written ruling has been published on the decision to embargo the judgment.
The indecent assault case, which collapsed in February, centred on complaints about Bush’s conduct towards two women at a government function at The Ritz-Carlton hotel in September 2022.
The second case involves an historical allegation of rape, dating back to 2000.
Bush declined to comment Monday, citing legal advice.
The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions did not respond to requests for comment.
The Compass has sought additional clarity from the court over when and how the decision to embargo the judgment was made and has yet to receive a response.
Related Videos
