Editorial Staff

Editorial Staff

Gov’t awaits JLSC decision on DPP

Information Minister Melford Nicholas says the government is awaiting the results of a decision by the Judicial and Legal Services Commission about the future of the country’s Director of Public Prosecution Anthony Armstrong.

The Commission which is based in St Lucia is the institution under the law, tasked to exercise disciplinary control over legal officers. It is expected to decide on what form of disciplinary measure should be taken against the Jamaican-born DPP

Nicholas said on Thursday that once the Commission looks at the matter, they may make a determination that he may be unsuitable to hold the position.

“So we await the outcome of that deliberation at this particular point in time,” Nicholas said.

Armstrong found himself in trouble with the law after he was arrested and charged on his arrival in Jamaica with fraudulent conversion, conspiracy to defraud as well as three counts each of uttering forged documents and forgery.

He apparently sold three properties without the consent of his client to whom they belonged.

On Wednesday, the complainant claimed that the lawyer had admitted to selling the three properties behind his back and had promised he would repay him “if it’s the last thing he did”.

The claimant further alleged that Armstrong repaid him US$15,450 between September 2006 and April 2007 through a third party from Antigua.

According to the allegations, the complainant met Armstrong through his cousin’s husband and retained him in 1999 to act as his lawyer during the land purchase.

Two of the properties were in St Andrew while the other was in St Ann.

After the completion of the land transaction, the complainant ran afoul of the law in 2003 and was incarcerated for 15 years in the US.

While in prison his relatives allegedly showed him documents indicating that his properties had been sold.

Following the complainant’s release, it is alleged that he had a telephone conversation with Armstrong in which he (Armstrong) admitted to selling his properties and promised to repay him.

It is further alleged that Armstrong was given time by the complainant to make the payments.

The complainant alleged that after collecting partial payments in 2006 and 2007, he was unable to contact Armstrong.

The complainant consequently reported the matter in 2018.

Armstrong’s lawyer Hugh Wildman is, however, contending that his client wasn’t the person who sold the properties.


Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.