DPP did nothing wrong

JAMAICA’S J USTICE system, and the administration thereof, are not so delicate that they cannot tolerate robust but respectful scrutiny from the people they are supposed to serve.

That is why this newspaper is surprised by the seemingly abrupt turn by defence counsel in the Vybz Kartel et al murder case, who, on the face of it, would now shut down debate on last week’s Privy Council ruling, and related developments, in the matter. The immediate target, it appears, is Paula Llewellyn, the island’s director of public prosecutions (DPP).

“We urge all actors (public/private) to allow the Court of Appeal to properly be seized of this matter and refrain from seeking to try this matter in the public space,” the defence team said in a joint statement on Monday. “This will not advance the best interests of justice or the best interest of any of the relevant parties in this matter.”

Kartel is a popular dancehall artiste whose given name is Adidja Palmer. In 2014, he and three associates Shawn Campbell, Kahira Jones, and Andre St John – were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for the 2011 murder of Clive ‘Lizard’ Williams, who reportedly could not account for illegal guns given to him for safekeeping.

But last week in London, the Privy Council, Jamaica’s final court, overturned the convictions and remitted the case to Jamaica’s Court of Appeal to determine whether the quartet should be retried or freed. The Privy Council’s decision was primarily because Justice Lennox Campbell, now retired, who presided at the original trial, allowed a juror who sought to bribe his colleagues to return a not-guilty verdict to remain on the panel that decided the outcome.

PRINCIPLE

Unfortunately, a 1983 Jamaican case, highlighted this week by two of the lawyers who were involved, former Prime Minister P.J. Patterson and Hugh Small, was not brought to the attention of the Jamaican courts at first instance or at appeal. In that matter, to which The Gleaner was a party, a principle to that which arose in the Kartel case was also present.

The purported action of Livingston Caine, the juror in the Kartel case, came to the judge’s attention on the last day of the 64-day trial. One juror had previously been discharged. Letting go Mr Caine, as defence lawyers argued, would have resulted in the number of jurors on the panel falling below the minimum then required for murder trials.

The Privy Council held that the contamination of the jury caused the defendants not to be assured of a “fair hearing by an independent and impartial court”, as required by Jamaica’s Constitution.

While prosecutors insisted it was they who had more to fear from Mr Caine’s presence, the Privy Council ruled that this did not take into account the possibility of other jurors overcompensating for his behaviour by delivering a guilty verdict, notwithstanding the evidence.

In the aftermath of the Privy Council’s decision, this is what one of the defence lawyers said with respect to Ms Llewellyn’s role in Justice Campbell’s action: “The director of public prosecution infused herself in his chambers and encouraged the judge to keep the juror who was allegedly bribing and to render the verdict with the bad apple.

“So this is the day to see whether it is right for the prosecutor, the chief prosecutor, ..., to encourage a judge to keep a juror who has been bribing the others. So we are going to see what will happen today, and whether there will be a pronouncement on the wrongness of that.”

The seeming implication of that statement is that Justice Campbell, incredulously, surrendered his agency, and the powers of his court, to the DPP.

LLEWELLYN’S INTERPRETATION

DPP Llewellyn’s interpretation of what happened is quite different. She told the Observer newspaper that she was invited by the judge, as were defence lawyers, to be part of the consultations on how the case might proceed.

The bottom line: Ms Llewellyn had a different position on the law than the defence lawyers. She, as the Privy Council in line with the ruling of the Jamaican Court of Appeal 40 years ago noted, was wrong.

Ms Llewellyn’s action, however, did not amount to strong-arming the court. Neither could it be reasonably claimed that, in the circumstance, she failed to act as a minister of justice.

While the DPP’s speculation of whether the recent remarks by the Kartel defence lawyers were aimed at intimidating her office is over the top, she cannot, in our view, be faulted for branding them as “mischievous” and “misinformation”.

But these statements, and others, do not of themselves impinge on the ability of the Court of Appeal to arrive at a decision that appropriately balances justice and the public interest when it comes to decide on the next step in the case. Moreover, Jamaicans have a right, even if they are wrongheaded in their perspective, to discuss and debate the actions of the judiciary of their ministers of justice, once, as Lord Atkins put it nearly 90 years ago, they do not input improper motives to the administrators of justice.

Indeed, Lord Atkins’ dicta remains relevant: “Justice is not a cloistered virtue: she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful, even though outspoken, comments of ordinary men.”

Added Llewellyn: “It is unfortunate that counsel has sought to spread misinformation and seek to be mischievous and foment misunderstanding on this area, and I can only hope it is not in an effort to intimidate me or my office. They must be so careful that in being so irresponsible and spreading this sort of misinformation, that it does not act as an adverse factor which undermines our security at the Office of the DPP. We are career prosecutors and we have no vested interest in any case.”

The opinions on this page, except for The Editorial, do not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Gleaner.