March 4, 2002 JAMAICANS UNITED AGAINST
POLICE BRUTALITY
Dear Friends, Families Against State Terrorism (FAST), an organization representing families who have lost loved ones to police extrajudicial killings, was reprimanded by both the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and the Judge for distributing leaflets outside the court conducting the inquest into last year's police killing of seven young men in Braeton. The implication was that this was an attempt to influence the jury and thus pervert the course of justice. Among other things the leaflet stated that: (1) None of the youths had a criminal
record.
The leaflet was produced and widely distributed months before the inquest began and the facts are not in dispute. Indeed, far more damaging evidence has since been offered about the manner of the shots received and despite attempts to sully their character, no evidence has been tendered that any of them had criminal records. Furthermore, the court could hardly disagree with the notion expressed in the flyer that the ‘police cannot legally function as judge, jury and executioner.' None of the jurors claimed to have seen the flyer. Would the judge regard newspapers which report on the inquest and sold within the precincts of the court as attempting to pervert the course of justice? We doubt this very much. Why then suspend court proceedings as if a crisis had occurred? Why have the organizing activities of FAST around the Braeton murders become a concern for the judge, the prosecutor and the lawyers representing the police? Several witnesses have been asked about their association with FAST though such questions have nothing to do with how the young men met their deaths. The judge has been the chief offender in this improper line of enquiry. This we believe raises questions about her judicial temperament. As previously reported she failed to support a juror's question about the legal precept (clearly stated in the Jamaican constitution) that someone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. In adjourning the proceedings the judge admonished the jury not to read flyers but to accept ‘What Mr. Michael Pryce said and don't rush to judgement.' This reference to Michael Pryce, a journalist then giving evidence, and an admitted friend of senior police officer Reneto Adams, leader of the police executioners, was particularly disturbing. Pryce had just uttered those words in the context of a comment that those in the media who challenged the police version of how the young men died reminded him of Nazis. 'There should be no rush to judgement,' he said, presumably because he hoped to convince the jury that he did not hear gunshots or voices begging for mercy as he stood outside the house on the fateful morning of March 14. The body language of the jurors hardly suggests that they are buying his story. Was the judge subtly asking the jurors to believe Mr. Pryce? And, by denouncing some witnesses as liars because she did not accept their explanations for being late, was she deliberately trying to discredit the damaging testimonies they were about to give about the police? While one could hardly quarrel with the notion that juries should not be tampered with, that there should be no deliberate attempt to influence them through direct contact, it is equally foolhardy to believe that expressions of overt bias by a judge are not attempts to influence the jury as has clearly happened in this case. Giving up one's right to freedom of speech either voluntarily or through court intimidation could never be contemplated. Fortunately, there is no sign that FAST will be so intimidated. Where the court has a fear it has the prerogative to isolate the jury but has no powers to suspend anyone's civil liberties. Surely one hopes that an intelligent
jury will ultimately be guided by the facts. There is no evidence
however to suggest that exposure to public discussion will preclude them
from rendering a proper and just verdict. Given the justice system's blatant
collusion with police impunity, public discussion (or trial by radio as
the DPP calls it) is absolutely necessary.
Lloyd D'Aguilar
Click here to return to Jamaicans United Against Police Brutality homepage. |