While defence attorneys and the Jamaica Defence Force (JDF) welcomed the Supreme Court ruling on Thursday that freed three soldiers of murder charges in relation to the fatal shooting of Keith Clarke 14 years ago, the verdict left his family devastated.

“I am not in a place right now to comment. As a matter of fact, I went to my doctor and I am now in my bed. My lawyer, he is managing all of that for us. But thanks for your concern,” the slain accountant’s widow, Dr Claudette Clarke, told the Jamaica Observer a few hours after Justice Dale Palmer upheld a no-case submission by the attorneys representing lance corporals Greg Tingling and Odel Buckley, and Private Arnold Henry.

The decision brought to an end a matter that plodded through the legal system for more than a decade.

Clarke was shot dead inside the master bedroom of his house at 18 Kirkland Close in Red Hills, St Andrew during a police/military operation on May 27, 2010. He was shot more than 20 times, including in his back.

At the time, law enforcers said the operation was mounted to capture then fugitive drug lord Christopher “Dudus” Coke, who was wanted by the United States Government on drug and weapons charges.

Local authorities maintain that Coke and about seven heavily armed henchmen were believed to be hiding in the basement of Clarke’s house. The authorities also said that Coke and his men escaped in a heavily forested area to the back of Clarke’s house after engaging the security forces in a fierce gun battle.

Two years after the incident, Tingling, Buckley, and Henry were charged with murder following a ruling from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. It took another six years for the trial to begin, but the process was halted again when JDF attorneys presented immunity certificates.

The documents, dating back to 2016 and issued by then Minister of National Security Peter Bunting, attempted to shield the accused from prosecution for their actions during the 2010 operation.

In February 2020, the Constitutional Review Court ruled that the certificates were unfair and unreasonable, and ordered that a trial be held to determine whether the certificates could halt the murder trial.

In April 2024 Justice Palmer ruled that the certificates could not halt the process and the trial continued to its eventual conclusion on Thursday.

Responding to the ruling, the JDF issued a statement declaring that it stands with the three soldiers.

“This verdict brings relief to the service members who now can reclaim their freedom, rebuild their lives, and return to their families without the burden of litigation. Despite the challenges faced over the past 14 years, we appreciate the justice system’s fair assessment of the evidence. This decision reinforces our faith in both our servicemen and service women and the justice system itself.

“The JDF remains mindful of the profound loss experienced by the Clarke family and continues to offer sincere condolence. Our commitment to lawful and responsible service remains unwavering and we continue to support our soldiers who put their lives on the line every day in service of this country,” the JDF said.

Attorney Linton Gordon, who represented Private Henry, was happy with the judge’s decision but emphasised that it was nothing the celebrate.

Gordon said that the ruling was grounded primarily in the issue of identification. He said, despite all the evidence and the documents, including forensic reports, that were brought to bear, the case could not reach the standard for the judge to say there was sufficient evidence that the jury should assess and determine if the men are properly identified as the ones who were in the room firing and therefore responsible for a wrong act.

“It just was not there. The judge had no choice, therefore, but to comply with legal rules governing evidence and rule that there was no case to answer,” added Gordon who appeared with Valerie Neita Robertson, King’s Counsel (KC); Peter Champagnie, KC; Jodian Hammit, John-Mark Reid, and Obika Gordon for the defence.

“The attitude of the Jamaica Defence Force is that all operations should be conducted without fatalities. This is a very unfortunate one in which the soldiers were faced with an all but impossible situation in which at least four of them were shot and injured. The group of soldiers who went to the premises, a weapon was pointed at them and they instinctively responded as they are trained. This is what led to the very unfortunate demise of Mr Keith Clarke, and this is why we don’t consider this a typical case for there to be any celebration,” Gordon said in response to a question from the Observer.

“Despite that, I must say the men… are very pleased and happy because they went through a tremendous amount of stress and difficulty and broken families because of the time this matter has taken to be brought to an end. The judge made a ruling confirming our submission that there was not any evidence properly identifying these three men as the men who are responsible for the unfortunate death of Mr Clarke,” the senior attorney said.

“It is not difficult to understand that, because in Mrs Clarke and her daughter’s evidence there were six to eight men in uniform not identified in the room where the incident occurred. It was very difficult without proper identification to say that these specifically are the men responsible. Other efforts were made, such as ballistic reports, but they were not sufficient to establish that these men are criminally responsible for the death of Keith Clarke, as the judge properly ruled.”

Gordon said the soldiers can now resume their normal lives, pointing out that the bail conditions heavily restricted their movements.

“There were conditions that restricted their movements, including travelling abroad. One of the soldiers, for example, his spouse and child are abroad because of what is required of them to continue their lives. He has not been able to visit or join them. On our side, our clients suffered difficulties during the proceedings that have just been brought to an end,” he said.

Gordon acknowledged that there was a great deal of frustration coming from the jurors throughout the very lengthy trial and blamed that on the prosecution.

“There were several adjournments during the Crown’s case and there were several additional witnesses and several pieces of documents that were not initially produced to us and this created some difficulty. The background to this is that, like in all other criminal cases, there is a period of hearing the case before taking it to trial; it is called case management conference. We had that for nearly a year, and the difficulty we faced was that on several occasions there were documents brought in the case that were not provided or served on us during case management hearings. There were witnesses, including the last witness who was called, who gave his statement, I think three days before he was called as a witness.

“There were issues that led to the need for there to be adjournments for us to assess new documents and new evidence produced to us that we did not have from the beginning. I think it is a lesson for all of us. Case management conference is brought into being to ensure that all of the issues on both sides — the prosecution and the defence statements and documents — are to be brought forward, exchanged and served where possible, and then when you go to trial you all know what you need and what you are doing and this will ensure that a trial proceeds expeditiously and is brought to a conclusion in a timely fashion,” Gordon said.

Champagnie suggested sanctions be considered for dealing with those situations where time is wasted in cases due to the late submission of files and other issues that should be ironed out in court management proceedings prior to a trial.