The recent decision by the Privy Council in the Janice Allen case would probably serve to underpin the legal appropriateness of the action this week of Crown prosecutors to prematurely close their case against Tesha Miller, the reputed leader of Spanish Town's notorious Klansman gang.

But Miller's case raises serious questions not only about the quality of police investigations, but how they go about the basics of their jobs, such as debriefing and recording information from potential witnesses in criminal cases. There is also the issue of the level of coordination between the police and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) in obviously major and important prosecutions.

We make no comment on the verdict of the court that freed Miller of conspiring to murder Robert Haughton in 2004. What is cause for concern, though, is what triggered the acquittal: the murder of the key prosecution witness, Jeffrey Cranston, and, we are told, the refusal of another to return to Jamaica to give evidence. We have no information on why the latter took that decision.

Witness killed

In the case of the late Mr Cranston, who operated a taxi, he gave a statement to the police allegedly of being telephoned by Miller to pick up and drive two men to an address where Mr Haughton was murdered. Mr Cranston said he heard the explosions, but did not see the actual shooting.

But before he had an opportunity to testify, Mr Cranston was himself killed. His statement could have been admitted into evidence but was inadequate.

In the absence of a live Mr Cranston to explain how he might have known it was Tesha Miller to whom he spoke on the telephone, the basis of that recognition should have been laid in the statement. The prosecution said it was not.

That appears to us to have been a grave inadequacy on the part of the police, who should know, as a matter of course, that all the angles have to be covered in such debriefing/interrogation and recording of witnesses. We would have assumed, too, that having reviewed witness statements, the Office of the DPP should early recognise their shortcomings and quickly advise the police on whether a matter is worth pursuing, and if further investigation and/or additional statements are required.

Both the police and the DPP owe the public an explanation about this case. We suspect, too, that even Miller might feel cheated by the conduct of this court.

He would, we believe, have preferred to have been acquitted on the basis of the evidence presented in court rather than because of the absence of a murdered witness.

Public-broadcasting debacle

We have been unable to unravel the substance of Information Minister Daryl Vaz's June 10 turgid statement about the basis on which Cliff Hughes' Nationwide News Network (NNN) has been allowed to conduct ostensible test broadcast on a frequency that was previously earmarked for public-service broadcasting.

What is clear from Mr Vaz's statement, though, is that NNN, a commercial entity, "is to be granted a public-service broadcasting radio licence", and the "NNN is to provide services to the Public Broadcasting Corporation of Jamaica".

It is all seems curious to us, demanding an explanation with a clarity that neither Mr Vaz nor his predecessor, Olivia 'Babsy' Grange, has so far been able to muster.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.