Tweet

1) On February 21st 2021, acting pursuant to section 65 (2) (c) of the Constitution of the
Federation of Saint Christopher and Nevis, I took over two private criminal complaints
instituted by Dr. Terrence Drew against Mr. Eugene Hamilton. The Complaints charged
Mr. Hamilton with the offences of Bribery contrary to section 108 (1) (c ) and Treating
contrary to section 109 (a) of the National Assembly Elections Act, Cap 2.01 of the
Revised Edition of the Laws of the Federation of Saint Christopher and Nevis.

2) The charge of bribery alleged that Mr. Hamilton between the 29th day of May and the
5th day of June 2020 unlawfully gave or procured the giving of a gift towards the
construction of a house or part of a house to a “named” individual of the Eight Electoral
District, in order to induce the individual to vote for him in order that he might be return
as a member of the National Assembly. While the charge of treating alleged that Mr.
Hamilton on a date between May 28th 2020 and June 5th 2020 and, or with the
assistance of others, corruptly gave or provided food, drink and provisions styled as
“Corvid Care Packages” with labeling of the People’s Action Movement political party
and with the words “Vote for Eugene Hamilton” to persons for the purpose of corruptly
influencing those persons to vote for him to procure his return as an elected member of
the National Assembly.

3) The evidence in support of these complaints, were disclosed to me by Counsel for Dr.
Drew and on receipt of the evidence, I sought opinions from two independent senior
criminal experts. One of those experts comes from within the Federation and the other
from outside of the Federation. In written opinions provided to me, both independent
criminal experts concluded that neither the charge of Bribery, nor that of Treating had
any realistic prospect of success. They further concluded that the prosecution instituted
by Dr. Drew amounted to an abuse on the process of the court.
4) While I sought the opinions of independent Counsel, I am not required by law to do so,
neither am I bound by those opinions. My decision to do so, was made in my own
deliberate judgment in the interest of fairness and transparency, and Dr. Drew’s own
Counsel instructed written “respectful request” for me to engage independent counsel
to conduct the matter on behalf of my office. Having received the opinions, I undertook
my own examination of the evidence, considered the opinions, the law, and the
Prosecution Policy to prosecute. I concluded that there was insufficient evidence to
support either charge and therefore there was not a realistic prospect of securing a
conviction against Mr Hamilton. On April 26
th 2021, I discontinued the charges against
Mr. Hamilton.
5) A prosecution should only ever be instituted on the basis of sufficiency of evidence and
it should never be started unless there is admissible, substantial, and reliable evidence
to justify placing a person upon trial. From the provable facts of a case, there must be a
realistic prospect of securing a conviction before a prosecution may be brought. In this
case, there simply was not. While I am not required to give reasons for my decision
whether to prosecute or not, my decision to do so on this occasion, is that the public
are fully and properly informed about this case, which has been the subject of public
concern and interest.