Paula Llewellyn, director of public prosecutions, has taken issue with an article and in particular a headline published in The Gleaner on Saturday, October 31, 2009. As is only fair, this newspaper has allowed the office of the director to have its say.

Dear Sirs:

I make reference to your headline in respect of your report titled, 'Virgin Atlantic deal was legal', says Llewellyn'. This concerned my findings in the matter concerning the sale/divest-ment of Air Jamaica Ltd's London Heathrow slots to Virgin Atlantic Airways, consequent on the contractor general's referral of his report to my office.

On October 30, 2009, on Friday afternoon, I issued a press release on the aforementioned matter in specific terms. I was quite shocked and disappointed to see the headlines on page A3 of your newspaper, The Gleaner, dated Saturday, October 31, 2009, of your reportage. Upon making certain enquiries, I was made to understand that the headline was the product of the editor. I do not take issue with the contents of the report, but the headline which was totally false, bore no relation to the contents of the reportage.

Strong disapproval

I wish to register my strong disapproval of the above-mentioned headline as even a cursory perusal of my media release, my letter to Greg Christie, contractor general and his report on the captioned matter does not provide any basis for that particular headline.

I did not state anywhere in my letter or media release that the Virgin Atlantic deal was legal. I would like to indicate that my mandate as circumscribed in s.94 of the Constitution states inter alia that "the director of public prosecutions shall have power in any case in which he considers it desirable so to do:

a. to institute and undertake criminal proceedings against any person before any court other than a court martial in respect of any offence against the law of Jamaica;

b. to take over and continue any such criminal proceedings that may have been instituted by any other person or authority; and

c. to discontinue at any stage before judgement is delivered any such criminal proceedings instituted or undertaken by himself or any other person or authority."

It is not part of my remit to pronounce on the legality or illegality of contracts in these circumstances. That function falls under the portfolio of the learned Contractor General Greg Christie in these particular circumstances. In other scenarios, the solicitor general and other officers of the Attorney General Department may be asked to assess the status or validity of the relevant contract where appropriate.

Well-founded comments

May I say, in passing, that in relation to Mr Christie's comments, as revealed in his report on this matter, it is my judgement that his comments on all material issues were well founded. The remit of the contractor general is covered by the Contractor General Act, which prescribes his powers. I would not wish the public to be misinformed in respect of the respective roles and responsibilities of the Office of the Contractor General and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. This can only lead to confusion in the minds of the public and possibly undermine the confidence in our respective offices.

I can only hope that this is an aberration and that an apology or retraction of this wholly inaccurate headline is offered. I do encourage your editors and journalists to recognise that the public interest is never properly served by sacrificing accuracy or principle on the alter of expediency.

I will always remain a loyal devotee to the concept of freedom of the press and the critical role of the media to communicate and inform. I will, however, hope that a mutuality of respect will remain and be maintained between the media and my office going forward.

Best regards,

Paula V. Llewellyn, QC, (Ms)

Director of

Public Prosecutions