Vybz Kartel’s UK Privy Council decision hearing

The UK’s Privy Council sent the Vybz Kartel murder conviction case to a lower court to decide whether or not to retry the dancehall icon.

Subscribe to FOX 5 NY: https://www.youtube.com/fox5ny?sub_confirmation=1

Watch FOX 5 NY Live: https://www.fox5ny.com/live

FOX 5 NY delivers breaking news, live events, investigations, politics, entertainment, business news and local stories from New York City and across the nation.

Watch more FOX 5 NY on YouTube:

Black Entrepreneurs: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLcuHpcV2MbFhCA1ErwiU_6G6XSA-HBg0r

STREET SOLDIERS with LISA EVERS: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLcuHpcV2MbFgxNyloxnZwYu5p0oWN_lSJ

A.I. ALL IN: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLcuHpcV2MbFgcJsok-gL3gwY8OfzVkacP

Finding Faith: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLcuHpcV2MbFg7_GyPTOJfF9PiWwo9sgMd

The Big Idea: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLcuHpcV2MbFizXx6FzVo9sCaNbCYu_rVB

Download the FOX 5 NY News app: https://www.fox5ny.com/apps

Download the FOX 5 NY Weather app: https://www.fox5ny.com/apps

Follow FOX 5 NY on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/fox5ny/

Follow FOX 5 NY on Twitter: https://twitter.com/fox5ny/

Follow FOX 5 NY on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/fox5ny/

Subscribe to the Good Day NY Morning Brief newsletter: https://www.fox5ny.com/email

Judgment in the matter of Shan Campbell AA kaha Jones and Andre SJ against the King on the 13th of March 2014 following a 64-day jury trial in the home C Court in Kingston Jamaica the appellants Sha Campbell adija Palmer kahira Jones and Andre singen were convicted of the murder of Clive Lizard

Williams to whom I shall refer as the deceased at trial the prosecution case was the the deceased and another man lar Chow had been given two unlicensed Firearms belonging to Palmer for safekeeping on the 16th of August 2011 Campbell summoned Chia and the deceased to Palmer’s house after they had failed

To comply with Palmer’s deadline for returning the weapons the prosecution alleged that they were met on arrival by Palmer Jones and singen and that chow and the deceased were both attacked after which Chow saw the deceased lying motionless on the ground with Jones bending over him Chow escaped but the

Deceased was never seen again police attended Palmer’s house on the 22nd of August 2011 they noticed the house smelled a disinfectant on the 25th of August they cordoned off the perimeter wall treating the premises as a crime scene when they returned on the 27th of August they

Found that the entire interior of the house had been destroyed by fire on the 29th of August police forensics reported a foul odor emanating from the living room on a further visit on the 30th of September it was discovered that the rear of the house had been demolished police dug at the premises

But did not find a body the police seized the mobile phones of Palmer and singen text messages voice notes and a video from those phones were put in evidence of trial the prosecution also relied on telecommunications data which the police had obtained from Digicell a Communications provider the prosecution case was that

The mobile phone evidence and Telecommunications data taken as a whole with Chow’s evidence proved the fact of the killing the reason for the killing the method of disposal of the deceased’s body and the identity of at least one of the killers namely Palmer four appellants each denied murdering the

Deceased at trial the appellants objected to the Telecommunications data being admitted as evidence they argued that the data was inadmissible because it had been obtained in breach of the interception of communications Act and the fundamental right to the protection of privacy of communications guaranteed by the charter of fundamental rights and

Freedoms contained in the Jamaican Constitution the judge admitted the evidence he ruled that the data could be relied upon by the prosecution even if it had been obtained in breach of the charter or the interception of communications act over the course of a 64 day trial there occurred a series of incidents

Involving the jury the jury was reduced to 11 members after a juror was discharged almost 8 weeks into the trial on the final day of the trial it was brought to the judge’s attention that a member of the jury who will be referred to as juror X had attempted to bribe

Other members of the jury the judge questioned the jury forewoman who stated that juror X had offered bribes to each of the other jurors to acit the appellant the judge asked Council for the prosecution and the defense if the trial could continue it would not have been Possible only to

Discharge juror X because under the jury act a trial for murder cannot cont continue with fewer than 11 jurors the judge decided to proceed with his summing up and gave a direction to the jury reminding them of their function the jury retired to consider its verdict at 3:42 p.m. the jury

Returned at 6:08 p.m. and by a majority of 10 to1 convicted all four appellants of the deceased’s murder a fifth defendant was unanimously acquitted jury X was immediately arrested and was later convicted of attempting to pervert the course of Justice there was no evidence to connect his activities with the

Appellants the appellants appealed against their conviction to the court of appeal of Jamaica which dismissed their appeals the court of appeal granted permission to appeal to the judicial Committee of the privy Council on three grounds which were first that the trial judge failed properly to inquire into allegations of Juror

Misconduct secondly that the trial judge departed from standard practice in inviting the jury to retire to consider their verdict so late in the day putting undue pressure on them to reach a verdict and thirdly that the trial judge ER in admitting the Telecommunications data because it had been obtained in

Breach of the interception of communications Act and the charter the judicial Committee of the Council has unanimously concluded that the appeals should be allowed and the appellant’s convictions should be quashed on the ground of Juror misconduct and that the case should be remitted to the court of appeal of

Jamaica to decide whether to order a retrial of the appellant for the murder of Clive Williams the board has considerable sympathy with the Dilemma faced by the trial judge on the final day of a long and complex trial following the allegations of bribery he had either to

Continue with the 11 remaining jurors or to discharge the jury despite this the board considers that the approach taken by the judge was a material irregularity in the course of the trial which makes it necessary to quash the convictions this is for three reasons first the direction to the jury on the

Final day was inadequate to save the situation the judge simply REM remed the jury that they had sworn or affirmed that they would return verdicts in accordance with the evidence they had heard in court the judge did not refer to the alleged bribery of which if the allegations were true the jurors were

Already aware secondly the trial continued with the allegedly corrupt juror serving as one of its 11 members in the board’s view there should have been no question of allowing juror X to continue to serve on the jury allowing juror X to remain on the jury is fatal to the safety of

The convictions which followed it was an infringement of the appellant’s fundamental right to a fair hearing under the Jamaican Constitution thirdly the judge should have considered whether the remaining jurors might have become consciously or unconsciously prejudiced for or against one or more of the appellants as as a

Result of Juror X’s behavior for example there was a danger that the attempted bribe could have made the other jurors overcompensate consciously or unconsciously if they assumed that the offer must have come from one of the appellants and that therefore they must be guilty the judge took no account of this

Risk the board is very mindful of the serious consequences which may flow from having to discharge a jury shortly before the end of a long and complex criminal trial it is also very conscious of the danger of deliberate attempts to derail criminal trials by engineering situations in which it is necessary to

Discharge the jury in England and Wales there is legislation which allows a judge in certain situations to discharge a jury because of jury tampering and to continue the trial by judge alone there is no such legislation in Jamaica it followed follow that there will be occasions where as in this case

A court will have no alternative but to discharge a jury and end the trial in order to protect the Integrity of the system of trial by jury in view of its conclusion on the issue of Juror misconduct the board holds that it is not necessary to express a concluded view on the other

Two grounds of appeal for these reasons the appellants appeals should be allowed the court is now adjurned