from the murder table. The offence was one which cried out for thorough and in depth investigation. No stone should have been left unturned. No prosecution should have been launched until all the results of the scientific tests had come in, until every avenue had been explored and until every enquiry warranted by circumstances as they unfolded had been thoroughly and completely pursued.

11. That is the lesson to be drawn from the precipitate prosecution of Kirk Mundy. Never again must a prosecution be launched upon the largely self-serving and exculpatory (insofar as murder was concerned) confession of a man of Mundy's criminal background without the most comprehensive investigation of all possible leads. Central to this, must be the timely and skilful collection and evaluation of the scientific evidence. Even where as here there is a confession, particularly to a lesser offence, the search for other direct and circumstantial evidence should nevertheless continue.

12. And most important, firm arrangements must be made for the return of the results of DNA examination at the earliest possible time. The lag of several months for results from Canada is unacceptable. We have been informed that facilities in the UK can have those examinations completed within 28 days. We recommend that this avenue be explored and the necessary budgetary allocations made so that the funds will be in place to have samples sent for analysis as and when required.

13. However, at the end of the day, it is the Director of Public Prosecutions alone who has to make the final decision about when to charge and what charge to bring. When once he makes that crucial judgement, he alone is answerable.

The buck, metaphorically speaking, stops with him.

14. When an occasion warrants it, the Director must personally lead his troops into battle. He must make that judgment call. And he must not regard it as an adverse reflection upon his competence or capacity if he is confronted with a prosecution which presents unique difficulties, outside the ambit of the experience which he would have acquired to date in Bermuda, to brief a specialist Queen's Counsel from abroad or locally to appear on behalf of the Crown.

15. Finally, he must seek to recruit the finest talent. The salaries, conditions and benefits must be so attractive and rewarding as to provide a hedge against poaching. The physical working surroundings must be comfortable, the atmosphere congenial and the library fully stocked with the latest law reports, practitioners books and legal periodicals. A harmonious environment is essential. Crown Counsel must be capable of working amicably together regardless of ethnicity or nationality. Personal animosities should be avoided and internal wrangling eschewed. For these are divisive diversions which are capable of curtailing the effectiveness of the work of the chambers. On the other hand, with unity of purpose and mutuality of respect, the chambers will be able to better fulfil its purpose of successfully conducting the prosecution of those who would impair the security and tranquillity of the community by an infringement of its laws.

*** CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION 1. The concept of continuing legal education is now universally accepted. So is the concept of Continuing Judicial Education. The work of the Commonwealth Judicial Education Institute is well known. We would therefore commend the stated policy of the Director of Public Prosecutions to continue to expose himself and all of his officers to whatever relevant training opportunities are available both in Bermuda and abroad.

2. In addition to the foregoing, we would recommend a continuing series of in-house sessions at regular intervals when the staples of the prosecutor's art -- criminal evidence, criminal procedure, the leading cases in these areas, the latest decisions of the Bermudian, English, Commonwealth, American and European Courts and the latest relevant legislation - can be discussed and ingested in either formal or informal interactive sessions. In the initial stages, particularly with the infusion of a number of relatively inexperienced counsel to the Chambers of the DPP, the services of an experienced consultant may be secured to assist in this process. We so recommend.

3. The other matter which has arisen for consideration in this area, is the matter of salaries and conditions of legally qualified officers of the public sector and of the judiciary. This matter is examined upon the assumption that the desired objective is that all such positions be peopled by Bermudians, to employ a gender-neutral expression.

4. In this regard, the public service, so to speak, is in direct competition with the private sector for the available talent. For positions in the public sector to be attractive to prospective recruits, there must be some serious attempt to tailor remuneration packages consisting of both salaries and other conditions of work in such a way as to make them attractive, not only as a learning experience for eventual transfer to the private sector, but as lifelong careers.

5. In order to achieve this objective, remuneration packages must include a competitive salary component, a housing component and a sufficiency of allowances which will permit of a reasonably comfortable standard of living, the education of children from nursery to university, and some form of medical insurance. The competitive salary component can be gleaned by reference to salaries in the legal private sector, the bills of costs approved by the taxing master, and the billing invoices and fee notes issued by lawyers in the private sector to their clients.

6. On the question of salaries and remuneration of all legally qualified personnel, including the higher and lower judiciary, we would recommend that a comprehensive study be done to determine the levels of remuneration packages which will ensure the recruitment and retention of suitable personnel to fill all posts in the public sector for which admission to practice at the Bermuda Bar or the right of audience in the superior Courts of Record is a pre-requisite. Though our remit, strictly construed, limits us to the consideration of the requirements of the Chambers of the DPP, we have made the wider recommendations which we have because of the possibility of movement from one area of the legal public service to other areas and back again.

*** IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION 1. Under this head the Commission wishes to do no more than to restate the accepted principle that it is the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Director alone who is empowered to grant immunity from Criminal Prosecutions under the existing legal and constitutional regime of Bermuda.

2. It would appear that the existing practice, which has continued in the Attorney General's Chambers at least since the tenure of Mr. Saul Froomkin, is that immunity can only be granted by a written instrument under the hand of the Attorney General, DPP. Such an instrument under the hand of Mr. Elliott Mottley was exhibited before us.

3. We would strongly recommend that the existing practice be continued and that no question of the exercise of power to grant immunity by anyone other than the Director of Public Prosecutions should ever be entertained. For the purpose of clarity, we wish to state our understanding that the power to grant immunity from prosecution for serious criminal offences is not to be confused with the discretion frequently exercised by the Police in purely summary matters of a trivial nature such as a purely technical assault followed by an apology which does no harm whatever, or an exchange of oral threats between friends before tempers cooled and reason resumed its seat.

*** ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE DISPOSITION OF CASES 1. There is a well established practice under which Counsel for the prosecution and Counsel for the defence agree between themselves about the manner in which counts in an indictment are to be disposed of. In several such cases, the judge is asked to sanction the agreement. Judges frequently sanction such agreements if satisfied that it is in the interests of justice and fairness to do so.

2. In the prosecution of serious criminal offences, the role of the Police is confined to investigation of the offence and the preparation of the case file for submission to the Director of Public Prosecutions or his designated officer who conducts the prosecution in Court. Though the Police have hitherto conducted prosecutions in the summary courts, we understand that, with the possible exception of minor traffic offences, this practice has fallen into desuetude and that summary prosecutions in criminal cases are now conducted by Crown Counsel. The Police do not therefore now enjoy any role whatever in deciding upon arrangements between the prosecution and the defence for the disposition of serious criminal cases. Nor should they.

3. When, therefore, Mr. Pettingill approached Mr. Richmond and Mr. Crockwell on the question of what charges should be brought against Mr. Mundy, and what plea Mr. Mundy was prepared to make in what circumstances, he was directing his enquiries to the wrong quarter because the Police have no power to give any undertakings about arrangements for the disposition of serious criminal cases and moreso about immunity from criminal prosecution.

4. Even if Mr. Pettingill had approached those Police Officers, for the limited purpose only, of conveying messages, or of acting as intermediaries, between counsel and the Attorney General, we would regard that approach as an invitation to those police officers to play a role which was wholly inappropriate and completely incompatible with their lack of capacity to make arrangements for the disposition of serious criminal offences.

5. Whatever may have been the perceptions or practices of the past, we would regard it as improper for any Attorney at law to approach the Police on the question of the disposition of serious criminal cases, and we would express the view that the Police would be well within their right to reject any such approaches.

6. Insofar as the Middleton case is concerned, Mr. Pettingill alleged in a letter to us that `a deal' had been struck: although he does not say in that letter between whom the deal was struck and what were the terms of that deal.

Messrs. Mottley and Tokunbo denied the making of any such deal: nor was any support for the deal forthcoming from the Police officers who allegedly took some part in its making. Had we been required to make a finding of fact on the material before us on this issue, we would have held that the evidence in support of a `deal' being struck was insufficient.

7. But Mr. Pettingill's letter is insightful in that it paints a picture of his relations with the Police -- a picture which on its face could appear to reach beyond the courteous but professional objectivity which should characterise such relationships, even in a small jurisdiction like Bermuda where most lawyers practising at the criminal bar would know and be known to most police officers.

8. The relevant excerpts from his letter are as follows: 3) ...I am Attorney of Record for the Bermuda Police Association.

5) I have developed a close working relationship with many Police Officers on the Island.

9) ...I have maintained a particularly close liaison with the Major Incident Room.

10) I have been involved with numerous plea bargains and have struck many agreements for immunity or lesser charges with the Prosecution both before and after the Middleton case. It is my understanding that it has always been the official policy of the Attorney-General's Chambers (now the DPP) not to plea bargain but it has been my experience that this is a common course of practice and, other than the Mundy case, I have relied on gentleman's agreements with both Counsel and the Police.

9. Mr. Pettingill has apparently failed to see the potential for a conflict of interest between himself wearing his hat as Attorney of Record for the Bermuda Police Association and himself under his hat as "Barrister and Attorney and Partner in the law firm....which currently has the highest percentage of criminal defence work in the country''.

10. However, we are grateful to Mr. Pettingill for so candidly pointing out the departure in practice from the official policy of the Attorney-General's Chambers (now the DPP). We do not understand him to be saying that he was the only Attorney involved in what he calls the "gentleman's agreements with both counsel and the Police''. Moreover, we are satisfied from both his written and oral presentations that the realisation has dawned upon all parties concerned that approaches to the Police about the disposition of serious criminal offences and a fortiori about immunity should cease, that arrangements for the disposition of such cases should be made only with prosecuting counsel, and that the question of immunity from prosecution falls for determination by the Director of Public Prosecutions alone.

12. We would recommend that these simple rules be observed by the DPP and his officers, by the Police, and by members of the Defence Bar.

Rebecca Middleton