The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has unanimously decided to overturn the convictions of Adijah “Vybz Kartel” Palmer and his co-accused for the murder of Clive “Lizard” Williams.

While Kartel and his co-accused await a hearing date for a decision in the local Court of Appeal, they will be allowed to apply for bail.

In the judgment, written by Lord Lloyd-Jones, the Privy Council gave a brief outline of the trial and appeal processes and proceed to give the three grounds upon which the appeal to the Privy Council rested.

The Privy Council decided unanimously that the conviction of all appellants be quashed on the basis of jury misconduct. The panel felt the judge’s handling of ‘Juror X’ was irregular and the convictions should be quashed for three main reasons.

Firstly, a judge’s direction for the jury to remember their duty and their oath was insufficient to cure the situation of tampering. A juror who has been accused of accepting a bribe should be dismissed to preserve the integrity of the jury, however, with a previous juror already dismissed, the trial judge chose to continue with ‘Juror X’ but the panel felt simply a reminder of their duty did not cure the issue caused by the tampering.

Secondly, allowing the juror to remain on the panel was “fatal to the safety of the convictions that followed and resulted in an infringement on the right to a fair trial under the Jamaican Constitution”. Since there was no option to release the jury and continue with a judge alone, or to release that specific juror and still have the quorum necessary to continue the trial, the jury should have been dismissed in it’s entirety.

Thirdly, the judge did not properly consider whether the remaining jurors would be influenced, unconsciously or consciously so, to sway in one direction against the accused men to overcompensate for the knowledge of the tampering. The panel of judges felt that there was not enough consideration given by the trial judge to the possibility that in order to ensure that they proved their integrity, the remaining jurors would have been swayed disproportionately to convict the appellants. Since the jury knew of the bribe, it is possible that they would assume that the very existence of a bribe or potential bribe must point to guilt. The panel believed the judge did not give proper weight to this consideration.

Since the panel had unanimously decided on the matter of the jury misconduct, they did not give any thoughts on the other grounds of appeal that were presented by the appellants. The Privy Council has decided that the convictions are unsafe and should be quashed. In other words, the appellants are no longer convicted of murder. The panel remitted the matter to the Court of Appeal in Jamaica to decide whether or not the defendants are to be re-tried.

Reacting to the Privy Council’s decision, prominent attorney-at-law Christopher Townsend said he is not surprised as he was convinced that the conviction would be struck based on the interest that the panel of judges took in the arguments in relation to whether the trial process was fair.

It is to be noted, that the Privy Council offered no opinions or findings on the issue of the admissibility of the telecommunication evidence, or whether there was jury pressure. These issues could be addressed by the Court of Appeal in deciding on the matter of a re-trial. Since they were not expressly thrown out as reasons for the overturn, it could factor into why a re-trial could be possible. The date for the re-trial hearing will need to be agreed on by the parties, subject to the availability of hearing times.