Refrain from trying Kartel and co-accused case in public, lawyers urge DPP

Attorneys for Adidja 'Vybz Kartel' Palmer and co-accused in the Clive 'Lizard' Williams murder case are urging the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Paula Llewellyn, and other interests to cease from trying the case in public, following their public utterances after last week's Privy Council ruling.

In a press release today, the lawyers said, “the defence team for the recently cleared Shawn Campbell, Adidja Palmer, Andre St John, and Kahira Jones takes note of the public reports and comments after the United Kingdom Privy Council decision on this matter (Shawn Campbell, Adidja Palmer, Kahira Jones and Andre St John v R [2024] UKPC 6).”

It continued, “We urge all actors (public/private) to allow the Court of Appeal to properly be seized of this matter and refrain from seeking to try this matter in public space. This will not advance the best interests of justice or the best interest of any of the relevant parties in this matter.”

The attorneys – Bert Samuels, Bianca Samuels, Isat Buchanan, Alessandra LaBeach and John Clarke – further noted that “after almost 13 years of the accused men being in custody, we genuinely believe that this fair outcome is their discharge without a retrial.”

Nonetheless, said the attorneys, “We expect the crown to prosecute, while we will try to provide our client a fair and strong response. We will focus on preparing our submissions for the Court of Appeal and acting as responsible legal professionals.”

On Thursday, the Privy Council in the United Kingdom quashed the 2014 murder conviction of the four men on the grounds of jury misconduct and sent the case back to the Court of Appeal in Jamaica for a retrial to be considered.

SEE FULL STATEMENT FROM THE ATTORNEYS BELOW:

The defence team for the recently cleared Shawn Campbell, Adidja Palmer, Andre St John, and Kahira Jones takes note of the public reports and comments after the United Kingdom Privy Council decision on this matter (Shawn Campbell, Adidja Palmer, Kahira Jones and Andre St John v R [2024] UKPC 6).

We note the very public attempts to 'amend' the Jury Act to affect the rights of accused persons to a jury trial. We remind the public that the UKPC noted in [35] that “the board notes that there was no evidence to connect any of the defendants with the activities of Juror X”. We hope that this will be a sufficient answer for the charges and counter-charges about corruption in the jury system and unfounded attacks upon the integrity of the accused and the defence counsel (at trial and appeal) concerning the activities of Juror X.

We note that any attempt to associate our clients with alleged offers made by Juror X is bound to act adversely against them in the minds of potential jurors should the matter be retried. We ask that the relevant state organs be mindful of this in public utterance and action.

We also note media reports indicating the DPP's published view that a misinformation campaign is aimed at intimidating her office after the Kartel ruling. We are unaware of such a campaign and are not a part of it. None of us, the defence counsel, in this matter, intend to bring the office of the DPP 'into disrepute' or to rile up any wayward soul to take any (in)action against the crown or any public servant. As ministers of justice, we are only focused on a just outcome in this matter and would ask all persons to desist from any PR campaign in this matter.

We look forward to arguing the Privy Council referral of this case to the Court of Appeal. We would never dream of taking any actions outlined by the learned DPP. After almost 13 years of the accused men being in custody, we genuinely believe that this fair outcome is their discharge without a retrial.

The DPP's actions in this matter are a matter of public record. They were no doubt influenced by her personal view of what the justice of the case required. The board, in paragraph [47] of its decision, noted that the “prosecution had approved of the course which the judge followed.” It further stated [42] that the "course followed by the judge was a material irregularity in the course of the trial giving rise to a miscarriage of justice.”

Any comments we have made in the past simply underline the importance of the DPP/or her office learning the lessons from this teachable moment. We suspect that our view of the just outcome of the retrial issue differs significantly from that of the DPP and/or other sectors of the public. We expect the crown to prosecute, while we will try to provide our client a fair and strong response. We will focus on preparing our submissions for the Court of Appeal and acting as responsible legal professionals.

We do not expect any actor (defence, crown or state), to be attacked/maligned/ridiculed for doing its job in this matter. We will not make or answer any unsubstantiated emotional attacks or counterattacks on this matter.

Emotive responses will not assist the court or the administration of justice in ensuring a just outcome or advancing our client's best interests/case. We know that our DPP will always take the action she deems fit in this case.

We urge all actors (public/private) to allow the Court of Appeal to properly be seized of this matter and refrain from seeking to try this matter in public space. This will not advance the best interests of justice or the best interest of any of the relevant parties in this matter.

Follow The Gleaner on X and Instagram @JamaicaGleaner and on Facebook @GleanerJamaica. Send us a message on WhatsApp at 1-876-499-0169 or email us at onlinefeedback@gleanerjm.com or editors@gleanerjm.com.