Former Prime Minister of Jamaica PJ Patterson has weighed in on the brouhaha surrounding the recent ruling of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to quash the murder convictions of Adidja “Vybz Kartel” Palmer and his co-defendants.

A joint statement from Patterson and Hugh Small, both of whom are King’s Counsels, upbraided the decision of the trial judge to have continued with the trial despite the apparent jury misconduct.

“The judgment of the Privy Council in the case popularly called the Vybz Kartel appeal has attracted attention because the Privy Council ruled that the Jamaican judges at the appellate stage should have discharged all the jurors from continuing to try the accused persons,” the statement said.

READ: Conviction Quashed: Privy Council sends Kartel case back to local Appeal Court

Patterson revealed that there was a special 1983 case that mirrored certain aspects of Vybz Kartel’s case as it relates to the treatment of a contaminated jury pool.

Incarcerated entertainer Vybz Kartel

“Neither the trial judge, Justice Lennox Campbell nor the three judges who heard the appeal from the ruling and verdict, were apparently aware that there was a judgment of the Court of Appeal of Jamaica in 1983 that ruled in similar circumstances, that the duty of the court was to discharge the entire jury and order a new trial,” the statement said.

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council last Thursday overturned the convictions of Palmer and his co-accused Shawn “Shawn Storm” Campbell, Kahira Jones, and Andre St John for the 2011 murder of Clive “Lizard” Williams and remitted the question of whether there should be a retrial to Jamaica’s Appeal Court. The Appeal Court is yet to rule on the case.

The law lords, in their ruling, said the decision by the original trial judge to continue the murder trial after the attempted bribe of the jury had been brought to his attention “gave rise to a miscarriage of justice”.

Lord Lloyd-Jones, in delivering the ruling, said the board was of the view that the tainted juror should not have been kept on the jury.

Patterson and Small agreed with this assessment, using the case of The Gleaner Company Limited and John Hearne v Michael Manley to drive home their point. Both Small and Patterson had both appeared as counsel for the plaintiff, Manley, in the libel case.

“At the trial, Justice UD Gordon, after three weeks of evidence, discharged the foreman as a ‘Special Juror’ that was hearing evidence in a libel case in which Manley claimed damages for an article, written by John Hearne and published by the Gleaner,” the statement said.

During the hearing of evidence for Manley, the Gleaner produced evidence that the foreman of the jury was employed to the National Workers Union, during a period of time when Manley held the executive position of island supervisor of the NWU.

“Justice Gordon discharged the foreman of the jury on the grounds of apparent bias but refused to discharge the entire jury and decided to continue with the six special jurors who remained. The Gleaner and John Hearne appealed against Justice Gordon’s refusal to discharge all the members of the jury,” the statement continued.

The Court of Appeal of Jamaica, consisting of Justices Edward Zacca, Ira Rowe and R.O.C White decided by a majority, that the entire jury must be discharged and a new trial take place. The case report is Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1983.

“In his judgment, the President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Edward Zacca stated: ‘Nothing should be done which creates even a suspicion that there has been an improper interference with the course of justice’,” Patterson and Small wrote.

The statement continued: “The learned trial judge’s finding of the foreman’s ‘known admiration and contact with the plaintiff’, taken, together with the period of time during which jurors had been sitting together; the fact that the trial judge ought not to make enquiries from the other jurors as to what had taken place in the jury-box and the nature of the case, warranted a discharge of the entire jury. One cannot tell to what extent the bias of the foreman may have influenced the remaining jurors’.

“It is regrettable that this case was not brought to the attention of Justice Campbell, the judges of the Jamaica Court of Appeal, Dennis Morrison, Patrick Brooks, and Franklyn Williams or cited in the Privy Council,” Patterson and Small wrote.

In conclusion, the learned men observed that: “It is worthy of note, unlike the situation in the Vybz Kartel case, there was no finding of actual misconduct by the foreman in that civil case.”

The learned gentlemen also objected strongly to the actions of the trial judge in the Vybz Kartel case.

“To have continued the criminal case against Vybz Kartel et al, notwithstanding 64 days of trial, was not merely a risk, but a fatal error to render any final verdict unacceptable in accordance with the tenets of justice and the decision of our own Court of Appeal in 1983,” the statement concluded.