ST. GEORGE’S, Grenada, October 21 — Attorney Cajeton Hood has challenged the acting Director of Public Prosecutions’ reported decision to discontinue criminal complaints against Prime Minister Dickon Mitchell and three other lawyers, saying a magistrate had already reviewed supporting documents and issued summonses.

Speaking at a press conference with podcaster Jenny Simon on Wednesday, Hood said he understood that the acting DPP Howard Pinnock had taken over and discontinued the matters arising from Simon’s complaints concerning Partners for Development Incorporated.

“The constitution allows the DPP to make that decision,” Hood said. “But he has to have a reason for it.”

Hood identified the four individuals named in the complaints as Mitchell, Andrea St. Bernard, Robert Branch and Teddy St. Louis. He said the allegations concerned disputed corporate filings and their subsequent use in land and financial transactions.

The allegations have not been established in court.

Hood stressed that the complaints relied on records submitted to the magistrate rather than solely on witnesses’ accounts.

“The basis of the complaints was transactions that were recorded in writing,” he said.

According to Hood, the magistrate spent several hours examining the documents and relevant legislation before issuing summonses. He cited Section 95 of the Criminal Procedure Code to explain how a magistrate considers a complaint and determines whether a case for issuing a summons or warrant has been made out.

Issuing a summons does not establish guilt, and Hood acknowledged that the accused retain the presumption of innocence.

“The Constitution says that they are innocent until proven guilty,” he said.

The underlying dispute involves allegations that documents relating to Partners for Development were improperly filed and subsequently used to facilitate transactions. Hood alleged that a 2024 filing represented Mitchell and St. Bernard as the company’s only owners after approximately 12 years without proper corporate filings.

He also disputed a reported suggestion that a complainant must first approach police before filing a private criminal complaint, arguing that the Criminal Procedure Code permits a person to complain directly to a magistrate.

Hood signaled that the reported discontinuance would face a challenge, although he did not specify the procedure or timing.