Former cop Oshane Thompson, whose life sentence for the May 2017 shooting death of Kriston Pearson at a party in Port Maria, St Mary, was overturned by the Appeal Court last July and a retrial ordered, has been barred by the same court from taking his case to the Privy Council.

Thompson, who was originally tried before then Supreme Court judge Justice Carolyn Tie-Powell (now acting judge of the Court of Appeal) sitting without a jury, was convicted of the murder and was on November 26, 2021 sentenced to life imprisonment, with eligibility for parole deferred until he had served 20 years and eight months.

Thompson, however, appealed both his conviction and sentence and the Appeal Court on July 31, 2025 delivered its judgment, allowed the appeal against conviction and sentence, but ordered a retrial.

But Thompson, in a motion filed last year, sought conditional leave from the Appeal Court to challenge that ruling for a retrial before the law lords in Britain.

The former lawman, in his proposed questions for submission to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, wanted to know “whether the Court of Appeal was correct in ordering a new trial without analysing or sufficiently analysing the grounds of appeal, which dealt with issues in relation to evidentiary deficiencies which plagued the first trial and which are relevant considerations in the determination of whether a new trial was possible after more than eight years after the incident date and without considering whether it was proper and reasonable to order a new trial based on the clash of the facts of his case and the high constitutional principles of right to a fair trial”.

Thompson, among other things, wanted the Privy Council to also say whether the Court of Appeal breached his constitutional right to a fair trial within a reasonable time by ordering a new trial.

The former cop, through his attorneys Jacqueline Samuels Brown, King’s Counsel; and John Clarke argued that, among other things, “the court focused narrowly on the feasibility of conducting a new trial, without sufficiently addressing issues of delay, fairness, and their impact on the applicant’s ability to mount an effective defence”.

The judges of the appeal, Justice Frank Williams, Justice Nicole Foster-Pusey, and Justice Georgiana Fraser in their analysis of the arguments mounted by Thompson simply said, “The court concludes that the applicant did not establish any proper basis for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council.

Said the judges of the appeal, “Section 110(1)(c) of the Constitution confers a right of appeal to His Majesty in Council only where the final decision of the Court of Appeal involves a genuinely disputable issue as to the interpretation of the Constitution. It is well-established that a mere reference to constitutional rights, or dissatisfaction with the manner in which a court has exercised its discretion in applying those rights, does not suffice.”

“In assessing the claim to an appeal as of right under this section of the Constitution, the court found that the proposed question, although satisfying the criterion of arising from a final decision in a criminal matter, does not engage any issue of constitutional interpretation. In the present case, although the applicant characterises the decision to order a retrial as involving constitutional interpretation, the substance of his complaint is that this court erred in exercising its discretion. The court considered the applicant’s complaints regarding delay, fairness, prejudice, and his ability to mount his defence, and concluded that none of those factors outweighed the public interest in a retrial,” they said further.

The judges, in declaring that they were “equally unpersuaded that the application satisfies the requirements of section 110(2)(b) of the Constitution” which addresses the right of appeal to the Privy Council where the final decision of the Court of Appeal involves a genuinely disputable issue, said, “It must also be emphasised that the Privy Council is not intended to function as a second criminal appellate court.”

“Where, as here, the relevant legal principles are settled and have been properly applied, leave will not be granted merely to permit a further review of the discretionary decision of this court,” the Appeal Court judges said.

“The court’s conclusion, therefore, accords with the Crown’s submission that the notice of motion for conditional leave to the Privy Council should be refused. Considering these matters together, the proposed appeal raised no novel issue of law, no unresolved constitutional question, and no matter of exceptional public importance warranting further scrutiny by His Majesty in Council. Therefore, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that his application satisfies the requirements for an appeal as of right…” the judges of the appeal ruled.

“The court holds that the notice of motion seeking conditional leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council from the decision of this court filed on 21 August 2025 must be refused. Accordingly, the following is the order of this court: the notice of motion for conditional leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council from the decision of this court, in Oshane Thompson v R [2025] JMCA Crim 18, made on 31 July 2025, is refused,” the tribunal stated in dismissing the matter.

The Crown’s case during the trial was that during the party, Thompson, a constable at the time, allegedly touched Pearson’s partner, identified as “Miss Henry”, on her arm or bottom, sparking a confrontation in which the two swore at each other and brawled.

According to eyewitnesses, Thompson then shot Pearson, who was said to be unarmed. Henry, who was a friend of Thompson, and another eyewitness testified at the trial.

Thompson’s defence was that he shot Pearson in fear for his life after Pearson hit him in his face, causing him to bleed and came at him a second time with a broken drink bottle, at which point he fired in his direction in defending himself.

Thompson, who resigned from the police force shortly after the incident, had left the island but was arrested in 2018 when he returned to Jamaica and made to answer the charges.