‘…It would be admissible in evidence’
Dear Editor,
If, as the prime minister said in Parliament on Tuesday, indictment against Christopher “Dudus” Coke was secured by illegally obtained evidence, which in my opinion, is inadmissible in the United States, the government of Jamaica is absolutely correct in not extraditing Mr Coke, whether or not Mr Coke is friend or foe, and it is immaterial if Mr Coke is a member of the Jamaica Labour Party or even a friend or brother of the prime minister.
In this context, US courts have consistently held in recent times that evidence of the finding of incriminating evidence in the course of illegal activity is inadmissible. The indictment is governed by the laws of the United States, and the Supreme Court of the United States in Mapp v Ohio (1960), 81A Sup Ct Rep 1684 affirmed the rule which it had laid down in Weeks v United States (1914), 232 US 383, that evidence secured through illegal search and seizure was inadmissible. Also instructive is United States of America, Plaintiff – Appellee v Lenin M Jerez and Carlos M Solis, Defendants – Appellants Nos 95-1549, 95-1562, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. Argued September 18, 1995. Decided February 27, 1997.
For the interest of the public, the position of Jamaica is entirely different, because such evidence, with a few exceptions, is generally admissible with the judge having a guided or qualified discretion as distinct from an absolute discretion to disallow. I think our R v Howard (12 JLR, 109) deals comprehensively with our current law which has its origin in the principle laid down in the words of Crompton J (y) in R v Leatham (1861), 8 Cox CC 498 at p 503 that if the evidence is relevant it is admissible when he literally said, “It matters not how you get it, if you steal it even, it would be admissible in evidence.” This principle was sanctioned by the Privy Council in the case of Kuruma v R (1955) AC 197 which is the law of Jamaica as stated before with certain exceptions, one of which is inadmissibility of involuntary statement.
Owen S Crosbie
Barrister-at-Law
Mandeville, Manchester
oss@cwjamaica.com
