LETTER OF THE DAY - Beyond Buckfield
Published:Thursday | March 28, 2013 | 12:00 AM
THE EDITOR, Sir:
THE PUBLIC uproar resulting from the Buckfield case and the subsequent public explanation by the director of public prosecutions (DPP) highlight two formidable challenges facing the administration of justice in Jamaica today.
The first concerns the physical absence of the pathologist who performed the post-mortem. The regulations provide for the admission into evidence of the post-mortem report provided that certain stipulated conditions have been met to the satisfaction of the presiding judge. These conditions include credible evidence of the pathologist being out of the jurisdiction and all reasonable attempts have been employed to obtain his attendance, but to no avail.
That procedure has been employed in the past resulting in so-called 'paper trials' in that there can be no cross-examination of the evidence tendered. The procedure is fraught with possible arbitrariness in that judges may come to different conclusions on a given set of conditions or the same judge may have a different view in another case of similar circumstances. Such assumes paramount importance as the cause of death is critical in murder trials.
Given our near total reliance on foreign pathologists, it is more than likely that they have either already returned or will have done so long before the pertinent trial dates. Media reports are that there are hundreds of cases so affected and that India seems to be the popular homeland. The cost of procuring the attendance of various pathologists for numerous trials is prohibitive. The possibility of a number of murder cases ending with formal verdicts of acquittal has horrendous consequences for the remaining confidence in the justice system - in particular the police and the DPP.
Technological intervention
It is hereby suggested that the appropriate legislative amendments and technological intervention be made to facilitate the admission into evidence of video conferencing of pathologists. (Such is being proposed to deal with the victims of the lotto scam resident in the USA). Indeed, such should be incorporated into future contracts. Apart from the cost savings, the videoconference link will facilitate cross-examination which is generally preferred to the sterile paper trial.
The second formidable challenge concerns the admissibility of video recordings. The law stipulates strict conditions which must be satisfied before such can be admitted into evidence. These conditions include the presence in court of the maker to testify that he had taken the recording with properly functioning equipment, the recording was properly safeguarded and not tampered with in any way. However, in this digital age, it is possible to independently verify the authenticity of such recording without the presence or testimony of the maker.
It is hereby being submitted that the appropriate technology be accessed and the legislation so amended to provide for this scientific certification. Major beneficial consequences are that the identity of the maker need not be ascertained or disclosed - thereby reducing fears of reprisal; and more members of the public would be encouraged to record scenes using their smartphones. Such recordings could then be uploaded to a dedicated police site and even shared with the media. This would provide a much-needed fillip to the involvement of the general public in the fight against crime.
DR PAUL ASHLEY