Mark Pettingill, the Attorney General, was last night chastised by his Opposition counterpart for speaking out after cannabis charges were dropped against the son of a fellow Minister.

The Progressive Labour Party’s Kim Wilson, former Attorney General under the Progressive Labour Party Government, charged that Mr Pettingill’s remarks had breached the “constitutionally-required separation of duties between the Director of Public Prosecutions and the AG”.

Mr Pettingill has responded to outcry after the Crown chose to offer no evidence against Thomas Moniz, the son of Trevor Moniz — Minister of Health and the Environment.

Mr Moniz, 19, of Smith’s, had initially denied possessing 2.1g of the drug, along with a grinder.

The case was dropped at a subsequent appearance in Magistrates’ Court, causing some to complain that the matter appeared to be preferential treatment.

Mr Pettingill moved to quash speculation in the community by saying the case fell “well within normal guidelines for a police caution”.

In response, however, Ms Wilson issued a statement last night saying she found it “curious” that Mr Pettingill would feel the need to comment on a matter “purely for the constitutionally-appointed DPP”.

Ms Wilson said: “You would not have found me commenting on any matters of a criminal nature even if it involved one of my political colleagues.

“I adhered to the proposition that justice has to be seen to be done and that commenting on a matter entirely outside the remit of the post could cause the people to question the holder of that post’s genuine loyalty to justice and create the perception of political interference.

“As Bermuda’s lead prosecutor, the DPP is responsible with reviewing police files and determining if the evidence contained is sufficient in laying a formal charge before the courts.

“The role of AG is to provide legal advice and representation to the government, its departments and ministries on civil matters.”

Ms Wilson said police would have made an arrest, gathered evidence and produced a police file approved by “several superior officers along the way” before presenting the file to the DPP, who would then make the decision to lay a charge.

She added: “The issue of a Police caution as the AG is referring to is distinctive from the above procedure.”

Ms Wilson pointed out that February, 2013 amendments to Police and Criminal Evidence (PACE) legislation allowed the DPP’s office to issue cautioning guidelines to police.

Such guidelines allowed for authorities “in certain circumstances” to caution an individual as opposed to arresting them, she said.

“Evidence consistent of simple possession for small amounts of cannabis consistent with personal use was one such example listed in the cautioning guidelines,” Ms Wilson said.

“The fact that drug equipment was also found may have led the police to the conclusion that this was not a case of personal use.

“However, again, this is a matter for the police and the DPP who is authorised to instruct the police to caution or will lay charges.”

The Sandys South Central MP also questioned what had taken place following Mr Moniz’s first appearance.

“The police, not having the authority to caution without the approval and consent of the DPP, submitted the file to him who, following a review decided that the facts warranted the laying of a formal charge on Tuesday,” she said.

“Yet [they] offered no evidence on Thursday. This begs the question, what were the intervening events?”

There was no response from Mr Pettingill’s office as of press time last night.