Facts of the case:
Adidja Palmer has been in a Jamaican jail since 2011 over the disappearance of his associate Clive Williams. Palmer and three others were convicted after a 64 day trial in Kingston, Jamaica. He was jailed for life with a minimum of 35 years.
Schedule:
NOVEMBER 18 2013 - Trial for the murder of Clive Williams
MARCH 13 2014 - Palmer and three co-defendants are found guilty by 11 member jury
APRIL 2014 - Palmer and co-defendants are sentenced to life in prison for the murder of Mr Williams. He is to serve a minimum of 35 years before eligibility for parole.
APRIL 3 2020 - Palmer lost the appeal against the murder conviction.
APRIL 17 2020 - The Court of Appeal allowed the appeals against sentences to the extent of taking account of time spent in custody awaiting trial. Eligibility for parole was reduced by two years and six months.
SEPTEMBER 25 2020 - Palmer and the co-defendants was granted conditional leave to go to the Privy Council in the United Kingdom to challenge their murder conviction.
FEBRUARY 14 AND 15 2024 - The appeal is heard by the Privy Council.
MARCH 14 2024 - The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council rules that the appellants convictions should be quashed on the ground of juror misconduct. The case should be remitted to the Court of Appeal of Jamaica to decide whether to order a retrial of the appellants for the murder of the deceased.
Appeal at the Privy Council:
Palmer's lawyers said the trial judge had not properly handled allegations that a juror had tire to bribe other jurors to return not guilt verdicts. These claims were said on the final day of the 2014 trial - it was not possible for the judge to rule that only 10 jurors could collectively determine a sentence.
There was further concerns raised during trial. Jurors were sent to reach a verdict late in the day, putting them under pressure to do so. Further, a key piece of mobile phone evidence (a text message allegedly sent from Kartel's phone) presented in court had been obtained in breach of guidelines.
Judge Lord Lloyd Jones allowing the juror to remain on the jury was "fatal to the safety of the convictions". The directions that were proposed to the jury were "inadequate to save the situation'.
"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 ground of juror misconduct," the Privy Council official said.
Until the next Legal Thought,
Elicia Maxwell
Resources:
Comments