WITH 50 suspected members of the violent Klansman Gang expected to go on trial soon, at least two defence attorneys have confessed trepidation given the challenges with the just-concluded Uchence Wilson gang trial, in which 24 accused faced the court.

Yesterday, Chief Justice Bryan Sykes completed his summation in the matter that had been in train since 2019, after the arrests of the accused in 2017. At the end of the more-than-two-week-long summation, 15 individuals were acquitted. The other nine, including convicted gang leader Uchence “Terrence” Wilson, are awaiting sentencing, which is set for the end of November.

The accused had been brought before the court on an indictment containing 53 counts.

Attorneys Donald Bryan and Alexander Shaw, in an interview with the Jamaica Observer yesterday, though celebrating their client Dane Edwards’ acquittal on all charges in the matter, said the experience with the trial made them leery in respect of the sheer number of accused in the upcoming matter.

The attorneys are of the opinion that the Criminal Justice (Suppression of Criminal Organisations) Act, commonly referred to as the Anti-Gang Legislation and which was relied on in the Uchence Wilson gang trial, will be the source of much angst when those 50 people stand trial.

“I am a bit concerned, really, as to the breadth of the legislation. It is extremely wide and it has depth to it as well, because essentially, even as the chief justice indicated, all that is required is that three persons or more come together to do an unlawful act, it [criminal act] doesn’t necessarily have to be executed; coming together and planning will be sufficient for the purposes of the legislation. So, it is so wide that perhaps most groups, or any group of three or more, can easily be caught under the legislation,” Bryan told the Observer, noting that, to some extent, this was “troubling”.

According to Bryan, consideration needs to be given to where “other bits of legislation that are of long standing in general criminality, stand relative to this particular legislation”.

“So one of the things that might be considered by the Crown is that, instead of carrying 50 persons to court under this legislation — in this case they carried 24 — whether or not some or most of those, depending on how they fit within the larger context… should not proceed under the Firearms Act, for instance, in relation to some of these matters; it is a monstrosity,” he pointed out.

“We have seen in this trial that went on for a whole nine months, and if you are going to talk about another trial that is waiting in the wings that would have nearly twice the number of defendants, which I understand, how will that be harnessed in terms of time frame, financial resources, social distancing [in this pandemic]? So the logistics, certainly, need to be worked out and very quickly, in my humble view, and be brought to the attention of the stakeholders so they can properly plan and make adjustments going forward,” Bryan told the Observer.

Shaw believes that, as things are now, the courts are unable to fit another matter with the limited resources they have now.

“These persons may languish in custody until the pandemic passes, so that alone tells us that this thing needs further tweaking,” he said.

Shaw said, too, that the anti-gang legislation “is not in keeping with the reality of what you consider a criminal organisation to be”.

“And so, quite often people are surprised when these groups are brought before the court, because you have never heard of them before, and even in terms of the resources, the legislation allows for one judge to deal with these matters and you find that sometimes there are multiple accused and so it puts a strain on the public’s purse, and we have to consider even that going forward,” the attorney noted.

He also expressed the view that the legislation is too broad.

“A group of persons who come together for one particular offence, you wouldn’t necessarily call that a gang, but as it stands now, the legislation captures that in the definition of a criminal organisation and you don’t even have to commit the offence; planning alone is sufficient.

“It is just too wide and you will find that it sometimes is impractical, and it allows for abuse of the process,” he added.

In the meantime, Wilson’s attorney Lloyd McFarlane, in an interview with the media yesterday, said the trial has shown the kinks in the legislation.

“Generally, what this trial has clearly shown is that it is not easy to prosecute under this present piece of legislation because if you are charging an accused with an offence like wounding with intent or robbery with aggravation, you need only prove the elements of that particular offence — that the person broke into the place [and] took out things, et cetera. Under the anti-gang legislation, when you are charging someone you have to prove several more ingredients in order to succeed, so here the prosecution would have to prove: 1) that a criminal organisation existed; 2) you would have to prove that the offence committed fell within the actual legislation, these are described as serious offences; 3) you not only have to show it was a criminal organisation but you also have to show that the persons charged, when they committed the offence, intended to facilitate the criminal organisation when they were so doing. So, it is far easier to prove the robbery,” he insisted.

As to whether the 53-count indictment was hastily put together by the prosecution, the attorney said this was not the case.

“The prosecution is still learning, still finding out what they can or cannot charge for in these offences. [They have] no legal precedent to guide themselves,” he stated, while pointing to the fact that mistakes were made in charging for certain offences.

He, in the meantime, lauded the trial judge for his handling of the exercise.

“This was a very tough task. He did an outstanding job in relation to the application of the various provisions as so far as the evidence provided in this case. [It was] well done, because he is the one setting the precedence… It has been a very tough case; it involved a lot of counts,” McFarlane said, noting that “as a development in our law, it will show the police and the prosecution what they can and cannot charge, and what they may or may not succeed on [which could mean they] may just decide to proceed under the direct charge than the anti-gang legislation”.

The nine convicts now awaiting sentencing were arrested by the Counter-Terrorism and Organised Crime Investigation Branch in 2017 and were said to be part of one of the island’s most organised gangs, responsible for robberies, extortion, rapes, murders, and the pilfering of a number of licensed firearms.

Since the beginning of the trial in March 2019, a number of the accused have walked free, with the Crown’s case against them falling apart due to insufficient evidence.

Wilson, for his part, was declared “not guilty” in respect of several counts on the indictment, but was netted for others.