Dear Editor,

Jamaicans from all walks of life waited for the Adidja “Vybz Kartel” Palmer verdict.

The Privy Council unanimously ruled in favour of Palmer that the trial, which was held in 2014, had proceeded improperly due to claims brought by his defence team of juror misconduct. Although I am not a legal scholar or luminary, I will state my honest opinions based on the facts presented.

First, if the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Paula Llewellyn requests a retrial for the defendant, then there might be a problem, as fresh evidence would have to be introduced for this case. My guess is that given the lapse of time, it would be quite difficult for the court to obtain new evidence, such as new eyewitnesses, testimony, confessions from the defendant, new jurors, videos, etc.

Second, based on the aforementioned arguments, it should logically follow that the old evidence, which was presented in the original case, would not be used; hence, it would now be null and void. This would signify that the voice notes retrieved from the cellphone, which the defence argued was tampered with, could not be reintroduced. Hence, it would be difficult for the prosecutor to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt.

Third, with the passing of time, although there is no statute of limitations for capital murder, my honest opinion is that the prosecution would find it extremely difficult to resurrect a case, in terms of time constraints and administrative issues, which, in turn, can be quite costly. Moreover, the crown would meet a number of obstacles; for instance, time to retrieve new videos, old evidence being destroyed, witnesses not remembering some of the facts, etc.

Fourth, although I am not familiar with the entire original case brought before the courts, I read that the body of Clive “Lizard” Williams has not been found up to the present day. How will the prosecution prove its case now that the body still has not been found after so many years? The body (or remnants of it) is likely in an advanced state of decomposition, so how will it prove its case to the new jurors? Additionally, now that the case is in the limeligh, locally and internationally, how effective will the new jurors be in their decision-making process?

Finally, does the new Data Protection Act, which was introduced in 2018, make it permissible to use data from cellphones in a murder trial? How applicable will this new Act be in cases that rely on cellphone data? Further, what is the extent of the access allowed by the Act?

The DPP has two difficult choices here, either to order a retrial, which could be quite costly, or dismiss the case entirely, as this option would be less costly. I think the DPP should proceed with the latter. But we will just have to wait and see.

Daniel Morgan

daniel.morgan@uwimona.edu.jm