Public defender, Howard Hamilton, wants to conduct his own enquiry into whether the government has civil liability for the death of Janice Allen and should compensate the relatives of the 13 year-old girl, who was killed by a policeman’s bullet in Trench Town four years ago.

But up to yesterday the slain teen’s family were yet to take up Hamilton’s invitation to meet with him.

At the same time, the Farquharson Institute of Public Affairs has also called for a public enquiry into the administration of criminal justice in Jamaica – including the Janice Allen case.

A recent not guilty verdict freed Constable Rohan Allen – the policeman charged with manslaughter for having shot the teenager who was fleeing from a gun battle between cops and gunmen – under circumstances where records were said to be missing and the court was told, erroneously, that the investigating officer had migrated.

It is unlikely that Rohan Allen will ever be tried again, but the teen’s relatives can still claim compensation from the government if a civil case can be established, Hamilton told the Observer yesterday.

Hamilton, who has asked relatives of Janice Allen to contact him at the Office of the Public Defender at 78 Harbour Street, said that if the state was found to be liable in Janice’s death, it would be a constitutional violation that the public defender’s office was empowered to take up.

“Even if there can be no criminal liability there can be civil liability against the state based upon the facts of the case,” said Hamilton.

“It is a matter that I could take up because that would be a constitutional violation which are matters that this office is empowered to do.”

The level of compensation that would accrue to the family from a successful case is however difficult to ascertain, and would have to be derived based on a complicated formula that the courts use.

It would mean assessing Janice’s potential, including her performance in school, said Hamilton.

“What I can say is that it involves a loss of life, so it would be substantial,” he said.

The invitation to Janice’s family was issued last Thursday, but Hamilton said he had got no response up to now.

“Perhaps they may have representation and don’t need the services of this office,” he said.

Rohan Allen was freed one month ahead of the fourth anniversary of Janice’s April 14, 2000 killing. The civic action group, Jamaicans for Justice, which was maintaining watch on the trial, immediately issued a statement bringing the matter to public attention and castigated the handlers of the case, claiming Janice and her family were being denied justice.

Hamilton, who said that the not guilty manslaughter verdict against the policeman was “irreversible”, argued that the prosecutor could have entered a conditional nolle prosequi.

“What it is saying is that we do not intend to prosecute now so you may go. But if and when the circumstances change that enable us to prosecute, we reserve the right to reopen or to bring back the matter,” he said.

Meanwhile the Farquharson Institute, in adding its voice to those of local human rights groups and Amnesty International who have been angered by the not guilty verdict for the policeman and the treatment of the case by the police and office of the Director of Public Prosecution, said that a number of important questions needed to be answered.

“The public needs to know what was the role of the police in bringing the case to the courts; what was the role of the DPP’s office in prosecuting the case, and what was the role of the court in allowing the trial to be aborted,” the Institute insisted in a statement.

“These are extremely serious questions that the country as a whole cannot afford to leave unanswered.”

The not guilty verdict, which has led to peaceful protests by human rights groups, was handed downby a Port Antonio jury on March 15, on the direction of the presiding judge who instructed the panel that there was insufficient evidence to convict Constable Allen.