Letter of the Day | Immunity certificates signed in good faith
Published:Thursday | May 3, 2018 | 12:00 AM
THE EDITOR, Sir:
I must express concern about the campaign being waged to conduct a trial in the media, primarily the print media, of the three soldiers who have been charged in relation to the death of Keith Clarke.
Members of the media seem to have forgotten or are wilfully ignoring a basic principle that all persons charged with a criminal offence are presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. They are also ignoring the principle of sub judice, which applies to matters pending before the court and should, therefore, not be openly discussed in public forums.
Some of the commentary in the media contain alleged facts that are not consistent with the claims the Crown has disclosed to us. If these persons making such comments have additional information on this matter, they should give a statement to the director of public prosecutions or to the investigators and make themselves available as witnesses.
On April 9, 2018, when the certificates of immunity were presented to the Supreme Court, the presiding judge properly ruled that the certificates will stand as legitimate documents unless or until they are successfully challenged in the Constitutional Court. Persons questioning the validity of these certificates are the ones who should challenge them and seek to have the court declare them as invalid.
LEGITIMATE MEANS
It is unfair for the media to be suggesting anything untoward where these certificates are concerned, as they were produced by legitimate means and in accordance with regulations promulgated under the state of emergency in 2010. It is of interest to note that similar provisions are also included in the regulations of 2018 promulgated for the current states of emergency now in operation in Jamaica - in St James and parts of St Catherine.
The regulations that established the right to immunity do not provide for a specific minister of national security to sign the certificates. As such, it was Mr Bunting's responsibility for signing the certificates, as he was the minister of national security when the men were charged.
For our part, members of the defence team believe that the Government brought the regulations in 2010 and 2018 into being with a genuine intention that members of the security forces will be entitled to immunity in appropriate cases.
LINTON P. GORDON
Ocho Rios, St Ann