The Cabinet has asked for legal advice on whether starting a Commission of Inquiry into the Joy St Omer case could interfere with the ongoing criminal proceedings, according to Prime Minister Philip J. Pierre.
This means the Cabinet still has not decided on the St Omer family’s request for an independent inquiry into how different systems and institutions responded to Joy’s repeated requests for help before her death.
When asked by journalists, Pierre said the situation is more legally complicated because someone has already been charged with Joy’s murder. Her estranged husband is before the court in connection with her death.
“Cabinet has not taken a decision because it’s not as straightforward as it may appear,” Pierre said.
The Prime Minister said the government has asked for legal advice on whether evidence shared during a Commission of Inquiry could affect the criminal case.
“What we’ve sought is a legal opinion as to, when someone has been charged for a crime, whether a Commission of Inquiry will not compromise that situation,” Pierre explained.
He stressed that Cabinet must consider whether evidence emerging during an inquiry could give the accused an advantage or disadvantage during the trial.
The Prime Minister’s comments follow the government’s decision last week to set up a Commission of Inquiry into the Anse Cochon boat accident, which resulted in four deaths.
Pierre said the circumstances between the accident and Joy’s case are not the same.
He pointed out that no one has been charged in connection with the Soufrière tragedy, while someone has already been charged with murder in the St Omer case.
No deadline has been given for the legal opinion.
Pierre said the government has asked the legal experts to give their advice as soon as possible because so many people are interested in the case.
“We haven’t given them the time, but we asked them to be as quick as possible because, you know, it’s a burning issue,” he said.
Joy’s family has said that the Commission of Inquiry they want would not decide who killed her, since that question is already being handled by the court.
Instead, the family wants an independent review of how institutions responded before her death. This includes how her reports to authorities were handled, whether her protection order was enforced, how bail was managed, and if current systems protect victims of domestic and gender-based violence.
