Decision by Prosecutor Paul Dacre on charges against Police Commissioner

1461 Hits

LAWYERS: Paul Dacre and Leone Sua-Mailo.

LAWYERS: Paul Dacre and Leone Sua-Mailo.

1. I received instructions from the Attorney General to take carriage of this file.

2. My role is to act as an independent Prosecutor.

3. The Attorney General and his staff have not played a part in my decision making process. I have not met with the Attorney General and I have not discussed the case with him or his staff.

4. I have met with some members of the Police. They were courteous and helpful. My decisions are however independent of the Police.

5. A number of members of the community were, in various roles, directly and indirectly involved in the event surrounding this prosecution. In many cases they provide statements or affidavits. I have reviewed these carefully. My decisions should not be considered as expressing any view as to the credibility of any these individual.

6. It is not appropriate for me to make any comments about Mr Keil. 

7. Mr. Keil faces for charges:

a. Disorderly conduct in a public place

b. Unlawful detention or kidnapping

c. Making a false statement to Ombudsman

d. Perjury

8. The duties of a prosecutor are set out in the Prosecution Guidelines issued pursuant to Section 22 of the National Prosecution Act 2015.

9. A prosecutor remains under a continuing duty to keep a prosecution that has been commenced under review.

10. The criteria for review are set in the Test for Prosecution. 

11. I have applied the criteria to each of the 4 charges. 

12.  I have reached the same conclusion in respect of each charge.

13. I am of the clear view that in respect of each charge the admissible evidence available is not sufficient to enable the offences to be proved.

14. It follows that I am of the clear view that the evidence is no longer sufficient to show a reasonable prospect of conviction. 

15. In these circumstances I am obliged to follow the guidelines which provide and direct that the prosecution must be discontinued.

16. I therefore formally I apply to the court to withdraw information:

a. S1958/16

b. S1959/16

c. S1960/16

d. S1961/16

17. Finally I wish to make it clear that the decision to withdraw is a decision independent of the stay application. The withdrawal shown be taken as any acceptance by the prosecution of the grounds of the stay.

© Samoa Observer 2016

Developed by Samoa Observer in Apia