Defence attorneys for Kartel, co-accused warn DPP against trying case in public

Attorneys for Adidja 'Vybz Kartel' Palmer and his co-defendants in the Clive Williams murder case have come out swinging in defence of the men, declaring that they had nothing to do with the attempts to taint the jury.

Responding to suggestions and public comments about a possible linkage between their client and the convicted juror, Livingston Caine, the attorneys in a press release yesterday underscored that the Privy Council had noted that no evidence was found to connect any of the defendants with the activities of the convicted juror.

While also distancing themselves from the activities of the convicted juror, the lawyers said, “We hope that this will be a sufficient answer for the charges and countercharges about corruption in the jury system and unfounded attacks upon the integrity of the accused and the defence counsel (at trial and appeal) concerning the activities of Juror X.

“We note that any attempt to associate our clients with alleged offers made by Juror X is bound to act adversely against them in the minds of potential jurors should the matter be retried. We ask that the relevant state organs be mindful of this in public utterance and action,” they added.

­ The attorneys – Bert Samuels, Bianca Samuels, Isat Buchanan, Alessandra LaBeach and John Clarke – were responding in part to a Sunday Gleaner article headlined 'Jury- tampering dilemma' in which it was highlighted that the case at hand exposes deficiencies in the existing laws and that lawmakers were as a result moving to close the gap.

Last Thursday, the United Kingdom-based Privy Council quashed the 2014 murder conviction of the four men on the grounds of jury misconduct and sent the case back to the Court of Appeal in Jamaica for a retrial to be considered.

In its ruling, the Privy Council noted that it had “considerable sympathy” for the dilemma faced by the presiding judge in Kartel’s murder trial after the attempts to tamper with the jury were discovered, but said allowing the tainted juror to continue in the case was “fatal to the verdict”.

Before the men’s conviction in the Supreme Court, there were three incidents involving members of the 12-member jury during the trial, including attempts by one juror, Caine, to bribe his counterparts to return a verdict of not guilty.

One juror was also, earlier, excused from the panel after she complained that St John recognised her while she was at the Horizon Adult Remand Centre visiting her son. She said her son told her, during another visit, that Kartel approached him and told him that St John saw his mother at the prison facility.

Caine was later convicted and no evidence was found linking Palmer, Campbell, Jones, or St John to his actions, the Privy Council noted.

The outcome of the case at the Privy Council has since exposed a major loophole, with fears that accused persons might be able to cause tampering with a jury to have the case thrown out.

The Government as a result is now moving to amend the Jury Act to mirror the United Kingdom’s (UK) Criminal Justice Act 2003, which permits judges – in certain circumstances – to discharge a jury and continue the trial alone once they are satisfied that the panel of jurors is tainted.

Agreeing that the concern is a live issue in light of the Kartel case, Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) Paula Llewellyn cautioned that the absence of a similar legislative provision in Jamaica would be “inimical” to the administration of justice and the citizen’s confidence in the system.

“If we don’t follow suit, you could have the ends of justice being thwarted because of jury tampering if it happens again.

“It may cause others who are of a corrupt intent to attempt to pervert the course of justice in this way. It, perhaps, may usher in this sort of modus operandi being replicated,” Llewellyn stated.

The attorneys however said they have noted the very public attempts to 'amend' the Jury Act to affect the rights of accused persons to a jury trial,” while also urging the DPP and other interests to cease from trying the case in public.

“Emotive responses will not assist the court or the administration of justice in ensuring a just outcome or advancing our client's best interests/case. We know that our DPP will always take the action she deems fit in this case.

“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 public space. This will not advance the best interests of justice or the best interest of any of the relevant parties in this matter,” they said.

Furthermore, they added, “We expect the Crown to prosecute, while we will try to provide our client a fair and strong response. We will focus on preparing our submissions for the Court of Appeal and acting as responsible legal professionals.”

Pointing to recent media reports quoting the DPP's as asserting that there was a misinformation campaign aimed at intimidating her office, the lawyers said they are unaware of such a campaign and are not a part of it.

“None of us, the defence counsel, in this matter, intend to bring the office of the DPP 'into disrepute' or to rile up any wayward soul to take any (in) action against the Crown or any public servant. As ministers of justice, we are only focused on a just outcome in this matter and would ask all persons to desist from any PR campaign in this matter.

“We look forward to arguing the Privy Council referral of this case to the Court of Appeal. We would never dream of taking any actions outlined by the learned DPP,” they indicated.

“After almost 13 years of the accused men being in custody, we genuinely believe that this fair outcome is their discharge without a retrial,” the lawyers said further.

Samuels, in a media interview, had stated that the DPP had erred when she told the judge to proceed with the case following the bribery attempt; however, the DPP in her defence said the judge sought the opinions of both parties and made a decision.

But collectively, the lawyers in the release said, “The DPP's actions in this matter are a matter of public record. They were no doubt influenced by her personal view of what the justice of the case required. The Board, in paragraph [47] of its decision, noted that the 'prosecution had approved of the course which the judge followed'. It further stated [42] that the "course followed by the judge was a material irregularity in the course of the trial giving rise to a miscarriage of justice”.

They added: “Any comments we have made in the past simply underline the importance of the DPP/or her office learning the lessons from this teachable moment. We suspect that our view of the just outcome of the retrial issue differs significantly from that of the DPP and/or other sectors of the public.”

tanesha.mundle@gleanerjm.com