Director of Public Prosecutions v Shantrice Dorset
High Court of Justice, St. Christopher Circuit (Criminal)
Claim No. SKBHCR2025/0049 | Decision dated 31 August 2026
This summary is provided to assist the media and the public. It does not form part of the Court’s reasons and does not replace the full judgment, which is the authoritative record of the decision.
Decision at a glance
The High Court found Shantrice Dorset, a former Crown Counsel, guilty on three of six charges arising from her dealings with Kyrhon Phillip (“KP”), who had left the Federation and was wanted by police in connection with a firearm investigation and the killing of Akeem Archibald. She was found guilty of attempting to pervert the course of justice in relation to the firearm investigation, misprision of felony in relation to firearm possession, and misconduct in public office. She was acquitted of the corresponding murder-related charges and of corruption.
Verdicts
• Count 1 — Perverting the course of justice (murder investigation): Not guilty.
• Count 2 — Attempting to pervert the course of justice (firearm investigation): Guilty.
• Count 3 — Misprision of felony (murder): Not guilty.
• Count 4 — Misprision of felony (firearm possession): Guilty.
• Count 5 — Corruption: Not guilty.
• Count 6 — Misconduct in public office: Guilty.
Why the Court reached these verdicts
The Court found that, on 22 July 2024, Ms. Dorset sent KP EC$560 and intended to facilitate his departure from the Federation at a time when she knew he had material information about a firearm recovered after the arrest of his cousin. Her own evidence, the timing of the transfer and travel, and later text messages satisfied the Court that her actions risked obstructing the firearm investigation.
The Court also found that Ms. Dorset knew material facts about the firearm and its possible ownership but did not disclose them to the authorities despite having repeated opportunities to do so. That failure supported the guilty verdict for misprision of felony in relation to the firearm.
On misconduct in public office, the Court held that Ms. Dorset remained a public officer with duties to uphold public confidence in the administration of justice. Her sustained communication with KP while knowing that he was wanted by police, viewed cumulatively with the messages and the seriousness of the investigation, amounted to a wilful abuse of the public’s trust without reasonable excuse or justification.
The murder-related counts were not proved beyond a reasonable doubt because the evidence did not establish that Ms. Dorset knew material facts linking KP to Akeem Archibald’s killing or that she sent money intending to obstruct that murder investigation. The corruption charge also failed: the indictment alleged a completed offence, but no benefit was obtained or promised, and the Court was not satisfied that asking a senior police officer what might happen if guns were surrendered amounted to an abuse of office for KP’s benefit.
Investigation concerns raised by the Court
In a postscript, the Court said Akeem Archibald’s family had every right to feel aggrieved. It highlighted apparent gaps and delays in the murder investigation, including the absence of forensic examination or reconstruction of items, the lack of an update on when KP is likely to be returned to the jurisdiction, and the failure to pursue several names and aliases appearing in the communications between KP and the Defendant and others. The Court stressed that the allegations against KP require proper investigation and eventual adjudication, without expressing any view on the outcome.
The post Director of Public Prosecutions v Shantrice Dorset appeared first on SKNIS.
