(Jamaica Gleaner) Newly minted president of the Court of Appeal Justice Marva McDonald Bishop, in freeing Vybz Kartel and his three co-appellants, today said that it was not in the interest of justice to order a retrial.
McDonald Bishop, in a highly anticipated ruling handed down in the Court of Appeal this afternoon, entered verdicts of acquittal against Adidja ‘Vybz Kartel’ Palmer, Shawn ‘Shawn Storm’ Campbell, Andre St John, and Kahira Jones.
Jones, who is serving an 18–year sentence for wounding with intent stemming from a 2009 incident in which he shot and injured a man in Waterford, Portmore St Catherine, will not be freed.
That sentence was handed down in 2019.
The panel of judges which included Justices Paulette Williams and David Fraser considered 12 factors in arriving at the decision.
The factors include the seriousness and prevalence of the offence; the strength of the prosecution’s case; the availability of the witnesses and exhibits; the availability of the defence witnesses, the delay and whether a trial can be facilitated within a reasonable time, the time, financial cost, expense and impact on the court’s resources if a new trial is re-ordered; the unfairness of a new trial if ordered; and the ordeal to be faced by the appellants if a retrial is re-ordered.
Considering all the factors, McDonald Bishop said, “Having weighed everything in the balance, the weight is against a new trial.”
She boldly highlighted the features of this case bear every hallmark of a “deliberate attack and barefaced defiance of law and order”, noting that it involved a transaction relating to an illegal firearm, an alleged killing in which the body of the deceased was not found, and interference with a crime scene under police control.
“The court is therefore satisfied that the nature, the seriousness and prevalence of the alleged offence in this case are powerful factors that weighed in favour of a retrial,” McDonald Bishop said.
On the other hand, she said, “The court however finds that there are several equally powerful factors which when combined militate against ordering a new trial.’
She listed factors such as the prosecution’s insufficient and inadequate account of the availability of the witnesses and trial exhibits, the unavailability of witnesses and exhibits which was relied upon by the defence in the first trial, the financial impact on the appellants, and the impact on the court resources if a trail is ordered, which swung the pendulum in the former convicts’ favour.
