Highly anticipated Vybz Kartel appeal under way at the Privy Council

The Privy Council in the United Kingdom has started hearing arguments in the appeal case for murder convicts Adidja 'Vybz Kartel' Palmer, Shawn 'Shawn Storm' Campbell, Kahira Jones , and Andre St John.

They were convicted in March 2014 of the murder of Clive 'Lizard' Williams.

The law lords heard submissions from King's Counsel Hugh Southey, who is representing Jones and St John, before breaking for lunch.

Southey's arguments primarily centred around potential breaches of the Charter of Rights in relation to telecommunications evidence, labelled JS2, and issues of jury tampering.

He pointed to the conviction of juror Livingston Caine on a charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice. Caine was found guilty of offering a $500,000 bribe to the jury foreman to influence other jurors to return a not guilty verdict in the Vybz Kartel murder trial.

Southey argued that given the juror was guilty of committing a crime, he could not have been relied on to follow the directives of the judge in the case. He said Caine's conviction ultimately stains the verdict in the Vybz Kartel case.

He stated that when the issue was brought up during the trial, Caine should have been dismissed.

He noted that if Caine had not been allowed to continue, the entire jury would have had to be dismissed and the trial would have to be restarted, since one juror had already been discharged.

Southey argued that while the restart of the trial would have been an issue given the fact that the trial had already been lengthy, "If that's what's required, that's what's required."

Southey also pointed to the fair-minded bystander test, and noted that it must be agreed or established that the defendants were the source of the attempted bribe, which he said was not done in the case in question.

Meanwhile, the attorney for the appellants contended that telecommunications evidence should be excluded as it was obtained in breach of Telecommunications Act and Charter of Rights.

Southey argued that if the matter of the admissibility of evidence obtained in breach of the law was not addressed decisively by the court, there would be nothing to stop the police from continuing to obtain evidence in breach of Jamaica's Constitution.

Grounds of Appeal

The issue in this appeal is whether the men's convictions are safe in light of the following grounds of challenge:

* Should the trial judge have excluded the telecommunications evidence relied on by the prosecution?

* How should the judge have handled the allegations that there were attempts to bribe members of the jury during the trial? Should the jury (or the particular juror said to have offered the bribes) have been discharged?

* Was the judge wrong to invite the jury to reach a verdict late in the day, given the special circumstances of the case?

Background to the case

The trial in Jamaica lasted 64 days before the trial judge and a jury in the Home Circuit Court in Kingston.

The prosecution's case was that the appellants murdered Mr Williams on  August 16, 2011 after he failed to return two unlicensed firearms which the Kartel, had given him for safekeeping. 

Williams was not seen or heard from after that date, and his body has never been found.

The police took the appellants into custody on September 30, 2011, and seized their cellular telephones. 

The prosecution relied heavily on evidence derived from these phones, which was taken from a copy of a CD rom provided by Digicel in response to a police request. 

At the trial, the appellants challenged the admissibility of this telecommunications evidence. 

They argued that the police request to Digicel and Digicel's provision of data to the police were carried out in breach of the Interception of Communications Act. 

Further, the evidence had been obtained in breach of the fundamental right to the protection of privacy of communication guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms contained in the Jamaican Constitution. 

However, the trial judge ruled that the telecommunications evidence was admissible.

During the trial, the judge became aware of an allegation that a juror had attempted to bride others by offering $500,000 for a particular outcome. 

After investigating the allegation and considering it with counsel for both the prosecution and the defence, the judge decided that the trial should proceed. 

He did not discharge the jury, or the particular juror said to have offered the bribes. 

The judge finished his summing up at 3:42 p.m. on March 13, 2014. 

The jury returned at 5:35 p.m. when the forewoman told the court that the jury had not reached a unanimous verdict. 

The judge sent the jury out again. 

At 6:08 p.m., the jury returned and, by a majority of 10 to 1, convicted the appellants of the murder of Williams.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellants' appeal against conviction. 

The appellants filed an appeal in the Privy Council.

The appeal judges are Lord Reed, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Briggs, Lord Burrows, Lady Simler.

Follow The Gleaner on X and Instagram @JamaicaGleaner and on Facebook @GleanerJamaica. Send us a message on WhatsApp at 1-876-499-0169 or email us at onlinefeedback@gleanerjm.com or editors@gleanerjm.com.