Popular imprisoned dancehall artiste Adidja Palmer, better known as Vybz Kartel, and his co-convicts: Shawn Campbell, Kahira Jones, and Andre St John, will have their sentences quashed on the basis of jury tampering.
The Court of Appeal in Jamaica will decide whether to order a retrial or set them free.
The judgment was handed down today by the United Kingdom-based Privy Council, the highest court of appeal for Jamaica and many Commonwealth countries.
“The judicial committee of the Privy Council has unanimously concluded that the appeals should be allowed and the appellants convictions should be quashed on the grounds of juror misconduct and that the case should be remitted to the Court of Appeal to decide whether to order a retrial of the appellants for the murder of Clive ‘Lizard’ Williams,” the Privy Council stated.
The appellants were sentenced to life in prison for the murder of Clive “Lizard” Williams in 2014 but appealed to have their convictions overturned. Their first appeal, to the Court of Appeal in Jamaica, was dismissed in 2020.
The issue in the Privy Council appeal was whether their convictions were safe in light of the following grounds of challenge:
- Should the trial judge have excluded the telecommunications evidence relied on by the prosecution?
- How should the judge have handled the allegations that there were attempts to bribe members of the jury during the trial? Should the jury have been discharged?
- Was the judge wrong to invite the jury to reach a verdict late in the day, given the special circumstances of the case?
Issue of jury tampering
Jury tampering emerged as a major point of concern during the appeal.
During the 64-day trial, the judge was alerted to an allegation that a juror had attempted to bribe others by offering $500,000 JMD for a specific verdict. After investigating the allegation and consulting with counsel for both the prosecution and defense, the judge opted to continue the trial without dismissing the jury or the implicated juror. The juror was later found guilty.
Questions were raised about the trial judge’s handling of the bribery issue and whether enough attention was given to mitigate any potential prejudice. The prosecution’s lawyers said, “Even if there were irregularities in the trial, they did not result in a serious miscarriage of justice.” They said that even if there was one juror who was bribed, there were an additional 10 jurors who came in with a guilty verdict.
The prosecution had requested a retrial if their convictions were to be overturned.
