Vybz Kartel Retrial Hearing: 5 Takeaways From Day 4

On day four of the retrial hearing for embattled Dancehall artist Vybz Kartel and his co-accused, Shawn “Shawn Storm” Campbell, Kahira Jones, and Andre St John the prosecution and the Court of Appeal went back and forth about whether a retrial should be ordered contingent on several key factors.

Convicted in 2014 for the murder of Clive “Lizard” Williams, Kartel and company are seeking their freedom after the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council quashed their convictions two months ago. The London court left it up to the Jamaica Court of Appeal to decide whether to order a retrial or dismiss the case altogether.

Here are five key takeaways from the fourth day of the retrial hearing:

1. Unavailability of Witnesses

On Thursday, Justice Marva McDonald-Bishop, who is leading the panel of three judges, declared that there would be no retrial if ample witnesses were not found. According to the Jamaica Gleaner, McDonald Bishop posited that it would be a waste of the Court’s time if the Prosecution had to scout witnesses to testify in the widely publicized matter. “This Court will not be sending any case to Supreme Court again to sit and wait until witnesses are found,” Justice McDonald-Bishop reportedly cautioned this morning during a hearing to determine whether the men are to be retried.

She pressed the Acting Director of Public Prosecutions Claudette Thompson about the availability of witnesses, to which Thompson noted that her colleague, Jeremy Taylor, in his affidavit, indicated that checks were made and that most of the witnesses were on standby. 

Justice McDonald-Bishop was, however, unconvinced—stressing that the Court has to be completely certain that the witnesses have been contacted and are willing to testify. “…Giving us a list of witnesses in your submission, I believe, doesn’t cut it and the other side has objected,” McDonald-Bishop said.

Turning to Taylor’s affidavit, the judge told Thompson, “If you think that is enough, that is a matter for you.” The judge added that no information was provided on whether he had spoken to any of the witnesses, which is the usual practice.

2. Leaked Evidence

Acting Director of Public Prosecution Claudette Thompson countered the defense’s submission about some of the technological evidence that was used to nail the accused. She said that the Crown still has a strong case against the men, even if the technological evidence was omitted. 

Again, Thompson’s argument was interrupted by Justice McDonald-Bishop. “I don’t think your biggest challenge is really on that, this case isn’t about evidence,” she said.

3. Retrial Could Take Place In 2025, Says Prosecutor 

On Thursday, prosecutor Janek Forbes said that the safeguard systems in the Jamaican court system could facilitate a fair retrial in 2025. In his submission, Forbes told the panel of judges that one key safeguard would be holding the jurors and giving them directives at appropriate intervals during the retrial.

“They can be given at the start, at the end of each day, they can be well timed…” Forbes explained according to the Jamaica Observer, adding that despite the publicity of the matter, a fair retrial could be guaranteed.

McDonald-Bishop was, however, unconvinced. “I have a very real concern and I am just going to lay it on the table, you have to help us with it. You have to explain it…People heard voices…saw images,” she said in questioning how evidence, including voice notes and videos reached the public domain before an appeal decision was handed down.

Defense attorney John Clarke told the Court of Appeal on Wednesday that no common law safeguard was deployed to ensure a new trial would not be affected by the publicity surrounding the Privy Council’s quashing of the 2014 conviction.

4. State Will Have To Bear Cost

The acting DPP told the Court that the Government would have to fund a retrial if it reached that point because issuing justice should be priceless. “The state will have to bear the cost. It will just have to bear the cost,” she told the Court of Appeal. 

Attempting to cement her point she added: “Murder in general is worth it and this murder specifically because of how it was done, the reason it was done…I don’t know how we can affix a cost to justice.”

Justice McDonald-Bishop, however, believed that the point was a slippery slope and that if the state had to bear the costs, it might be a detriment to the country’s resources. “You are saying because it is a murder and the type of murder, the government will have to find the money?” McDonald-Bishop asked, according to the Jamaica Observer.

“If one case is going to deplete all our resources — time, money, human — then that has to be considered.”

5. Constitutional Breach Justified, Says Prosecutor 

Acting DPP Claudette Thompson further argued that although there was, in fact, a breach in the accused’s constitutional rights to a fair trial within a reasonable time, it is justified.

Thompson pointed out that between September 30, 2011 to April 3, 2013, the arrest, charged, trial, conviction and sentencing of dancehall star Vybz Kartel, real name Adidja Palmer, Shawn ‘Shawn Storm’ Campbell, Kahira Jones, and Andre St John were conducted, which she argued as a reasonable time. She further said that from that point onwards matters were dealt with in a timely manner. This included: filing the notice of appeal, preparation of grounds of appeal and serving of grounds of the appeal, consideration of extensive grounds of appeal and the review of case law cited and assessments being completed. There was also an application to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council which lasted over the period of four days.

The granting of conditional leave took place on September 25, 2020 and final leave was granted on March 7, 2022. The matter was then with the Privy Council for two years.

When asked by McDonald-Bishop why the matter was in the system for 10 years, Thompson said, ““There was a delay. The delay can be reasonably justified based on all the activities that took place during the 10 year period…The presumption of unreasonableness — having done this aggregation, we have rebutted that presumption.”