JUSTICE Dale Palmer on Monday rejected an application by defence attorneys to have the Keith Clarke murder trial stayed so as to accommodate an attempt by the defence to challenge a recent decision by the Court of Appeal.

“In 2018 the matter was stayed to determine issues. I am ready to proceed. I refuse the defendants’ application for a stay. The trial is adjourned to April 29, 2024. We hope by then we will have sufficient jurors so we can get this process going,” Justice Palmer said, bringing to an end a verbal joust between Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Paula Llewellyn, King’s Counsel (KC) and Valerie Neita Robertson, KC.

Neita Robertson and Peter Champagnie, KC are defending three soldiers — lance corporals Greg Tingling and Odel Buckley as well as Private Arnold Henry — who have been charged with murder in the shooting death of Clarke, an accountant and businessman, in May 2010.

Clarke was shot 21 times inside his house in Kirkland Heights, St Andrew, during a police-military operation to find and arrest then fugitive Christopher “Dudus” Coke, who was wanted on an extradition warrant from the United States.

The soldiers have been before the court since 2012.

The testy exchanges between Neita Robertson and Llewellyn — who on one occasion referred to the defence’s attempt to seek a stay as frivolous and vexatious — unfolded before Justice Palmer asserted his authority and handed down the ruling.

Neita Robertson, in addressing Justice Palmer said, “I do believe that we indicated to you that we planned to appeal the matter, I am just waiting on my bearer to tell me whether the DPP was served. And so in these circumstances I ask for a stay of the proceedings so we can go to the Court of Appeal.”

In response, Llewellyn said, “The office of the DPP has not been served any documentation from my learned friend to evidence that anything has been filed. We heard that there was a sighting of my learned friend’s junior at the Court of Appeal. When we made enquiries it would appear that the filing of the documents happened today. If that is indeed so, given the fact that Your Lordship ruled in this matter a week ago, as far as we on this side are concerned, first of all what is a fact is that there is no stay of proceedings that was issued by the Court of Appeal.

“I say with the greatest of respect to the great powers that Your Lordship has, it is our view that Your Lordship, notwithstanding my friend’s persuasive abilities, would not have the power to grant a stay in this matter. Furthermore, looking back at the order of the Court of Appeal in this matter, it stated that the order of the Full Court is that the criminal trial initiated by the voluntary bill of indictment, originally issued in July 2012 by the director of public prosecutions, should be restored to the trial list. It should be permitted to continue after a
voir dire conducted by a judge sitting without a jury to determine whether the director of public prosecutions can rebut the certificates of good faith issued by the former national security minister. That process took place and the court ruled that we will indeed rebut the certificates of good faith that were issued by the minister.

“It would mean that the ordinary course of things, as already prescribed by the Court of Appeal judgment, that the voluntary bill of indictment is alive, subsisting that trial is to proceed. The matter was set for trial today and there is no stay from the Court of Appeal, and therefore we ask Your Lordship to reaffirm the situation which is that the trial is to proceed. It is an abuse of the process of the court, given the clear ruling of the Court of Appeal. This case has been before this court about 12 years and justice has to swing in both directions. We have had the witnesses for the prosecution faithfully attending court in order to give their evidence. This action on the same day of the trial is a very cold attempt and unfortunate action by my learned friend to thwart the ends of justice and I am very disappointed, however the Crown’s back is very broad.”

Neita Robertson, though, responded: “Since Miss Llewellyn has sought to attack me, it is acknowledged by all the stakeholders that this matter is unusual and has never occurred before in this jurisdiction, and understandably it would take some time for us to prepare the required documentation. I don’t know if Miss Llewellyn is so nervous that she is of the view that we ought not to have this matter clarified elsewhere and for us to challenge, with the greatest of respect, your decision.”

She pointed out to the judge that even if the trial was to begin on Monday, there would be delays due to juror shortage.

“I don’t know on what basis Miss Llewellyn would urge you not to grant the stay and to have this matter aired elsewhere. I understand that there are not sufficient jurors but Miss Llewellyn has not sought to tell you that, which means we cannot proceed.”

The DPP then explained that the court registrar informed her team that there might not be sufficient jurors.

“I understand steps are being taken to ensure the numbers. We are prepared to make a start in the matter today. We have our witnesses. The Crown cannot subjugate itself to what is a cold and callous attempt by my learned friend,” Llewellyn said.

Neita Robertson shot back: “I take objection to these slurs being directed to defence counsel. Miss Llewellyn must stop this nonsense. When are we going to stop to consider when is fairness going to be recognised by all the stakeholders?”