The headline of last Friday’s Gleaner editorial appears to be misleading: “DPP did nothing wrong.” Surprisingly, the editorial identified at least one instance in which the DPP did, in fact, do something wrong. On the controversial matter of the DPP’s ill-considered advice to the trial judge and prosecutors to continue the case against Adidja Palmer and his co-defendants with a tainted jury, the Gleaner editorial reported this statement by the defence lawyers:
“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 Gleaner editorial argued that, “The seeming implication of that statement is that Justice Campbell, incredulously, surrendered his agency, and the powers of his court, to the DPP.”
The editorial downplayed the DPP’s role in advising the judge: “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 bottomline: 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.” After clearly stating that the DPP “was wrong,” how could the Gleaner editorial conclude that “DPP did nothing wrong?” This wrong is the crux of the matter.
DPP’S ALARMING DISCLOSURE
Whoever wrote that troubling Gleaner editorial seems to not have heard Paula Llewellyn’s interview last Monday on Nationwide Radio. I was appalled by the casual way in which she made this alarming disclosure: “I have done other cases in which there has been jury tampering, to the great negative of the prosecution. I have seen cases, I have seen jury enquiries where the juror, having been questioned, it was quite clear that it was either an accused person or an accused person’s relative that approached the juror. And the juror was able to indicate to the court that it did not make any difference. He would still be able to have an impartial situation in his mind. I have had the experience, I have prosecuted many cases and when asked, I have indicated that we don’t have any problem. So, in other words, we are prepared to take our chances ….”
Taking chances with jury tampering is, most certainly, a violation of the right of the accused to be given a fair trial. How many prisoners may now be wondering if their conviction might have resulted from a tainted jury? And, if so, would it have been overturned if they had been rich enough to take their case to the Privy Council? As the American professor and defence lawyer Bryan Stevenson asserts, “ … the opposite of poverty is not wealth but justice.”
The Gleaner editorial quotes the British judge Lord Atkin: “Justice is not a cloistered virtue: she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful, even though outspoken, comments of ordinary men.” In other words, justice not suppose fi hide up inna courthouse. Everybody out a road have a right fi seh weh dem think bout in/justice.
‘A SOUND REPROBATE’
That’s precisely why, last Thursday, I signed the petition on change.org calling for the removal of the DPP and shared it on social media. Started by Robert Brown, the petition summarises the disturbing issue of the DPP’s miscalculation in the matter of jury tampering that resulted in the overturning of the conviction of Adidja Palmer, Shawn Campbell, Kahira Jones and Andre St John by the Privy Council:
“We, the citizens of Jamaica are concerned and saddened at the Office of the DPP mishandling of the Vybz Kartel case under leadership/direction of Ms Paula Llewellyn, Director of Public Prosecution. We are concerned that Ms Llewellyn’s insistence on carrying on with the case of the issue of the tainted Juror, shows lack of respect for our justice system. It’s not only wrong to secure an unsafe conviction off your own personal opinion but it also goes against our constitutional rights to a fair trial. We have no confidence in Ms Llewellyn’s leadership at this time to rectify or not to repeat these violations of our rights in the future. Therefore, we are requesting her resignation immediately, and the appointment of an interim Director until a replacement is named.”
It’s unfortunate that the petition refers to “the Vybz Kartel case.” It’s actually the Adidja Palmer case. The distinction matters. A decade ago, I made that point in my column, “Kartel: beyond reasonable doubt?,” published on March 16, 2014. Even though I strategically referred to ‘Kartel’ in the headline of the column, it was precisely the identification of Palmer with his stage name that I was questioning.
Alonzo Jones posted the first of several abusive responses to that 2014 column on The Gleaner’s website: “Carolyn Cooper you are a sound reprobate, who has tried to market the evil of a society as culture. Who are you, and what is your right as an authority on authentic dancehall culture?… One is called names and demonised in modern day Jamaica, when you call sin my [sic] its rightful name. Kartel music and all that he represents is demonically evil.” Demonic or not, Adidja Palmer deserved a fair trial. So did his co-defendants. The DPP’s decision to recommend that their trial proceed with a tainted jury was a gamble. And she lost her bet.
Jamaica Woman Tongue 
Leave a comment