Delroy Chuck
FOUR INNOCENT persons, two women and two men, were brutally killed on May 7, 2003 in Kraal, Clarendon. There is no evidence they had criminal records or were even involved in any criminal activity or wrongdoing, before or at the time of their death. They were Jamaican citizens deserving of protection by the state. Yet, their constitutional right to life seemed to have had no meaning and definitely not guaranteed.
The cries that no angels died at Kraal may resonate in the unrepentant corners of some people's minds but a lot more died there. The carnage at Kraal touched the nerve of the nation's soul, questioned the direction of its moral compass, challenged its commitment to human dignity and human life, and found its system of justice wanting.
The verdict of the jury on Tuesday, 13th December, was not surprising, perhaps it was expected. In the climate of increasing murders and escalating criminality, it is unlikely a jury will convict policemen who allege, truthfully or falsely, that the persons were killed in a shoot-out. Still, the jury gave full consideration of the evidence and probably felt that the case for the prosecution was not proven or were left in reasonable doubt and hence acquitted. Yet, the investigation and prosecution of the case impugn several aspects of our justice system.
PRESERVING THE CRIME SCENE
When persons are killed, the crime scene must be preserved, and especially so when the allegations are against members of the security forces. If crime scenes are disturbed, there should be serious penalties including professional discipline and dismissal. More importantly, an independent body should investigate alleged police killings. Within an hour of an incident, a truly independent investigating body must take control of the crime scene. If that had been done in the Kraal murder case, it may have avoided the allegations of the planting of guns and spent shells inside the house.
At the Kraal trial, was justice manifestly and undoubtedly served and delivered? No one can properly blame the jurors in the case of having any direct or indirect association with counsel or anyone in the case. Yet, an attorney who practices with integrity and character should inform the other side, before the jury is put in charge, of even a passing acquaintance or association with a juror, which would remove even the slightest appearance of unfairness. Two days into the trial, the direct association between a juror and a member of the defence team was brought to the attention of the Chief Justice, who did not discern any reason to start afresh.
KEY PROSECUTION WITNESS
Then, Danhai Williams, a key prosecution witness, fails to show up. His evidence was critical. From his reported statement, he could have confirmed or dispelled the notion of an illegal gun being provided. Within days of the closing of the prosecution case, he shows up in another court and reports that he was in touch with the police. It is a downright scandal that the police were unable to locate and bring him to testify. Why was he given immunity instead of an agreement for one and on condition that he gives evidence in court? Surely, the DPP has an explanation to the Jamaican public of what went wrong and the terms of the agreement or immunity with Mr. Williams.
In the interests of justice, human decency and on the overwhelming evidence, the state should immediately arrange to compensate the families of the Kraal massacre to at least the comparable sum of $19 million paid to the defence attorneys. Further, as a service to law students and the public, the record of the case should be made available at the public libraries. The families of the victims should certainly get a copy, especially if they are forced to sue the state for the unlawful killings of their loves ones. Perhaps, the victims' right to life may find some redress from a shameful and remorseful state.
Delroy Chuck is an attorney-at-law and Member of Parliament. He can be contacted by email at Delchuck@hotmail.com.
