‘A day in prison is like 1,000 years’

Sixty days after the United Kingdom (UK)-based Privy Council quashed the murder convictions of Vybz Kartel and his three co-accused, the Supreme Court yesterday began hearing a habeas corpus application filed on behalf of three of the accused.

Following six orders by Justice Andrea Thomas yesterday, the matter was adjourned until the end of this month.

Attorney Isat Buchanan, who represents Kartel, whose real name is Adidja Palmer, Shawn Storm and Andre St John, is seeking, based on what he cites as a gap in the law, to have three of the accused freed, at least 11 days before a retrial hearing at the Jamaican Court of Appeal.

“One can appreciate that the liberty of the men is left unanswered. The men are in no man’s land as it is. One would call it ‘La La Land’... . It’s a lacuna in the law where you’re not convicted, you’re not charged, but you’re held in abeyance. I think in terms of where the law is, that the legislators would have needed to make certain amendments to account for a situation where conviction is quashed, but the matter is not yet before the court,” Buchanan reasoned.

The retrial hearing is set to begin on June 10 and is expected to last five days.

On March 14, the UK Law Lords sent the case back to the Court of Appeal for a decision on whether the men should face retrial for the 2011 murder of Clive ‘Lizard’ Williams.

The fourth accused, Kahira Jones, is not a party to the habeas corpus proceedings because he has another matter before the court.

Yesterday, Buchanan told the court that there are issues that took place that he did not wish to put on record. He would only say the defence was also handicapped by “events of nature”, seemingly in reference to why he was now before the civil division of the Supreme Court and unwilling to await the retrial hearing for a decision.

Speaking with The Gleaner later, Buchanan said, “For me, a day in prison is like a thousand years. And so for that reason one can appreciate that having your conviction set aside, quashed, and to be still in prison awaiting that, it can be very stressful. And, certainly, just in terms of increasing or advancing the jurisprudence so that we can give effect to the Constitution, we found that it was necessary to do so.”

When asked how Palmer was doing, he said, “I would say, at this time, it’s been a good time to be waiting on a hearing, and for those reasons I can say that I would not be doing good.”

Back in court, Thomas said that, having read the law and come to some understanding, she could have made a decision yesterday. However, the matter involved the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) and she wanted the application to be served on that office.

“The judge was of the view that the director of public prosecutions is an interested party, as well as, for the jurisprudence, that proper submissions be put before the court by those parties,” Buchanan would later tell the media, seeking to explain the reason for Monday’s early adjournment when the matter was set to be heard over three hours.

Thomas, who reasoned with Buchanan about the law during the hearing, told the court that the men were certainly not acquitted.

“I could ask you certain questions. I could ask you … was there a complete acquittal? There is no conviction but was there acquittal? Because that’s where we start … there is no acquittal, yes? We are awaiting a decision. So, if there is no acquittal, the situation would refer for there to be a retrial.”

Buchanan said he would simply ask the court for the submissions to be ventilated and it was entirely a matter for the judge.

“That is the question for the court to answer, because if it reverts to that situation, then there is a situation within the Constitution,” Buchanan said.

“Yes, but because the matter is before a particular court that is where you make that application,” Thomas replied.

“My lady, that particular application, based on the law, is not an application that that competent court has any jurisdiction to intervene, which would be the issue of bail,” Buchanan said.

Thomas ordered that the matter be adjourned until May 29 and 30.

The DPP should also be added as an interested party and documents be served by the defence on the DPP by 4 p.m. yesterday.

An amended application, adding the DPP, was to be filed on of before today.

The DPP is to file a response to include submissions on or before May 20 and costs of the application are to be drafted.

The superintendent of Tower Street Adult Correctional Centre, where the men are being housed, is also a respondent in the application.

That entity is represented by attorneys of the director of state proceedings.

andre.williams@gleanerjm.com