Should majority verdicts in murder cases be accepted? Some interests in the legal field argue that now that the Offences Against the Person Act has been amended, abolishing the mandatory death sentence, and giving judges the power to pass "appropriate" sentences in murder cases, consideration should be given to amending the law to enable the acceptance of this. There have been instances where an accused person has had to face retrial because of a verdict divided, 11 to one.

In addition, there is a strong lobby by members of the public for the abolition of preliminary inquiries. Some people argue that "prelims" amount to an accused person being tried twice. That is bad of itself, they say, but preliminary inquiries unnecessarily endanger witnesses especially in gun murder and shooting cases and others involving other serious offences. It is felt that abolition would reduce the workload in Resident Magistrates' Courts considerably and be less costly to accused persons.

end preliminary inquiries

A KPMG study done in the late 1990s, on aspects of Jamaica's justice system, recommended the abolition of preliminary inquiries. It stated in part:

The preliminary inquiry is a mini-trial, in that it requires all the parties to the case to attend the hearing, including all the witnesses. It is, therefore, as expensive and as time-consuming as a trial and subject to the same problems of delay and multiple adjournment. It can also lead to issues that interfere with the subsequent trial of the case in the High Court. For instance, attorneys may challenge High Court witnesses where the presentation of evidence differs, however slightly and whether it is material or not, from that given at the preliminary inquiry. Defence attorneys are also aware that the preliminary inquiry lengthens the judicial process. Witness recollections, and sometimes the level of willingness to testify, can fade rapidly with time.

There is still a need to establish a prima facie case for committal to the High Court, but this could be achieved more quickly by a shorter hearing which the accused and his or her lawyer would attend, but where other evidence would be adjudged on the basis of witness statements and other written evidence.

Toning down high-profile cases

In recent weeks, the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions has been opting to send certain high-profile cases straight to the Home Circuit Court for trial, by preferring voluntary bills of indictment, rather than committing the accused persons by way of preliminary inquiries in RM Courts.

An example is the case of Rodney Beckles, son of the principal of the Cave Hill campus of the UWI. Young Beckles is charged with the knife-slaying of Khalil Campbell, son of High Court Judge Lennox Campbell.

Other cases include the man accused of slaying a priest at Stony Hill, a trafficking-in-persons case involving an adult and three teenage males, and the murder case in which gas station operator Lloyd Brown and his fiance were slain.

Also, in recent months, carnal abuse cases involving children have been sent directly from the Children's Court to the Home Circuit Court.