At least two senior attorneys with no known connection to the case believe dancehall star Adidja ‘Vybz Kartel’ Palmer and his three co-accused will be freed or granted a retrial when the UK-based Privy Council hands down its ruling on the appeal against the quartet’s 2014 murder conviction on Thursday.

According to the attorneys surveyed by Observer Online, significant sections of the 64-day trial of the four men breached the accused’s constitutional rights, resulting in an unfair trial.

A decade ago, Vybz Kartel, fellow entertainer Shawn ‘Shawn Storm’ Campbell, Kahira Jones and Andre St John were given life sentences for their role in the murder of Clive ‘Lizard’ Williams.

Three years later, the four men appealed their convictions in the Court of Appeal, however it was dismissed and their sentences upheld. They were later granted leave to present their appeal before the Privy Council, the highest tier of the Jamaican court system.

On February 14 and 15 the appellants presented arguments on whether trial judge Lennox Campbell should have allowed telecommunication evidence, which was obtained in a manner that allegedly breached Palmer’s constitutional rights to privacy, into the trial.   Another grounds cited for appeal was the judge’s decision to not discharge the jury or the accused juror following allegations of bribery attempts. The appellants also argued that there was an apparent rush placed on the jury to return a verdict, even after the forewoman had told the judge earlier in the day that the jury could not reach a unanimous decision.

According to attorney-at-law Christopher Townsend, the decisions taken by Judge Campbell in the case went against the core mandate of every judge, which is to hold a fair trial.

“Whenever a trial is in jeopardy of fairness being compromised, there is always a good argument for counsel to say that the trial is unfair because it is every judge’s mandate to hold a fair trial. And so if there is a complaint— and a strong complaint— that the trial is unfair then you can’t get more meritorious argument than those [presented] and, further, if we are saying that the man’s rights were breached constitutionally to obtain a conviction, then you can’t be allowed to break the law either to get what you want,” Townsend said.

For these reasons, and the fact that the Privy Council took an interest in the case in the first place, Townsend believes that the decision can only come from two options: acquittal or retrial.

“I believe, at this stage, that it is going to be one of the two. One, they either acquit the man outright or you order a retrial perhaps with conditions attached. They could always say, in light of all of this, it is believed that the conviction was stayed— I don’t believe it was but I cannot presume up on the Privy Council and they might very well come to that decision.

“But certainly, the interest that they took in the various arguments and the thoughts that they had certainly suggests that they seem to have been very concerned with the question of fairness and if their thought patterns were to be followed, they seem to be in favour of striking down the conviction at the first step and perhaps ordering a new trial. But whatever happens it does appear that the conviction will be struck,” Townsend said.

As for renowned journalist and attorney-at-law Dionne Jackson-Miller, while she did not indicate on which side she believes the Privy Council will come down, she told Observer Online that the Privy Council’s focus on the fact that the jury or the accused juror were not dismissed following the bribery attempt allegations, shows their main area of concern. As a result she believes the decision will be based heavily on this issue.

“Whenever you listen to submissions you take your queue from the bench in terms of what it is they are interested in and what are their major areas of focus and it was clear that their concerns were the jury points and the concern about the juror that had not been dismissed. So I think we are all pretty much expecting their decision to turn on that. I am not going to try and predict the outcome, we will wait and see what they say because it is going to depend on what their reasoning is and how they get to their particular position, but I think it’s clear that the jury issue was the main issue,” Jackson-Miller said.

A senior attorney, who opted to speak on the basis of anonymity, stated in definite terms that the artiste will be freed of his conviction. His opinion stems from the allegations that the telephone evidence used in the trial was tampered with.

“I remember following up the case at that time (when the telephone evidence was introduced and argued) I didn’t follow much of it after, but it is clear that the electronic evidence was tampered with, it is very clear, which means that it cannot be trusted,” the attorney, who has been in the business for 29 years, said.

“My expectation is that Vybz Kartel will be freed because many times we Jamaicans have to go overseas to get justice,” he added.

All three attorneys suggested that, regardless of the Privy Council’s decision, there will be changes in the way cases of this nature are handled in the future.

“I think whatever the outcome of Adidja Palmer’s appeal, it is something that we are going to have to look at in terms of how we deal with similar issues going forward, whether we need legislative change as was suggested by one of the lawyers or just how it is that we are supposed to deal with that situation of attempted bribery so that we don’t wind up in the same kind of situation again,” Jackson-Miller explained.

Townsend added that he expects that following the appeal, the way evidence is obtained will be carefully examined before being allowed into a trial.

“Our jurisprudence is heading in a particular direction whereby evidence that is going to be obtained illegally the court might say ‘no if you obtain this illegally then really and truly you can’t use it’. Now if that happens it is going to have a serious effect on how it is that things are viewed as evidence in this country. Because the law is now, however you obtain it, illegally or not, it is still good evidence,” Townsend said.

“So if they come up with this judgment to say that if you breach the man’s constitutional rights to obtain the evidence then you can’t use it, that is going to turn jurisprudence on its head and it will change the thinking of our society and the thinking of our police officers who are supposed to be the prime protectors of our constitutional rights but feel that they have the freedom of law to breach it,” he added.

The Privy Council is expected to hand down their decision on the accused’s appeal at 11am Jamaica time on Thursday.