Full Text | DPP explains how provocation changed Silvera's murder case to manslaughter

The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) says it accepted politician Jolyan Silvera’s guilty plea to manslaughter after concluding it could not disprove his claim that he was provoked into shooting his wife in 2023.

It also reported that Silvera, a former People’s National Party St Mary Western member of parliament, said he initially did not admit to his actions because he did not want to deprive his children of both parents.

The ODPP outlined the evidential and legal basis for accepting the plea in a statement released “in the interests of justice and transparency” on Friday. Melissa Silvera, 42, was shot and killed by her husband at their Stony Hill, St Andrew, home on November 10, 2023.

Silvera had been charged with murder and using a firearm to commit a felony.

He pleaded guilty to manslaughter and using a firearm to commit a felony as his trial was scheduled to begin before Chief Justice Bryan Sykes on Monday. He is to be sentenced on March 6.

According to the ODPP, Silvera initially pleaded not guilty to murder on both counts of the indictment but guilty to manslaughter. Prosecutors advised the court that acceptance of a plea to the lesser offence would require a factual basis from the defence, as manslaughter did not arise on the prosecution’s case.

The ODPP said that on Tuesday night, the defence submitted a signed statement from Silvera detailing his account of the incident.

In that statement, Silvera said he and Mrs Silvera had an argument that escalated into a physical confrontation, during which she blamed him for the death of their young son, hurled expletives at him, and made what he described as derogatory and provocative remarks about his family.

"During the argument she made a comment about their children which he found to be the final straw and at that point he lost control discharged his weapon in her direction," the ODPP reported from Silvera's statement.

“He stated that it was not his intention to hurt or kill her that night and that having done so he panicked and left the apartment,” the ODPP said.

Silvera further told prosecutors that in the days following his wife’s death, he decided not to admit what had happened because he was thinking about his children losing both parents.

The ODPP said its case was based on circumstantial evidence and ballistic findings, including events before and after Mrs Silvera’s death, but not on direct evidence of what occurred at the moment she was shot.

“There is no evidence in the prosecution’s possession that can speak to what occurred at the residence when the deceased was shot and killed by the defendant,” the statement said.

After hearing Silvera’s account, prosecutors concluded they would not have been able to “evidentially negative the partial defence of provocation” raised by him.

The ODPP noted that once provocation was raised on the evidence, the court would have been required to direct the jury on its effect, including the possibility of reducing murder to manslaughter.

The prosecution said it was guided by established case law, including Gaynair Hanson v R (2014), which holds that where an accused’s version does not support a murder conviction, a plea to murder should not be accepted.

“The court was of the view that manslaughter was the more appropriate offence,” the ODPP said of that ruling.

Prosecutors also relied on Pearlina Wright v R (1988), which establishes that sentencing should proceed on the facts most favourable to the accused where those facts cannot be disproved.

“Neither the prosecution nor the court could ignore the version given by Mr Silvera, especially in circumstances where the prosecution could not disprove the account given by him,” the ODPP said.

The ODPP also outlined the factual background to the case, noting that sometime after 10:30 p.m. on November 10, 2023, Silvera told his wife and children that he was leaving the house. An argument followed, according to statements from two of the children.

Early the following morning, one of the couple’s sons discovered Mrs Silvera’s body on the bedroom floor and alerted his sibling before contacting their father.

A post-mortem examination later revealed three gunshot wounds, and ballistic testing confirmed that projectiles recovered from Mrs Silvera’s body were fired from Silvera’s licensed Glock pistol. Mrs Silvera was initially believed to have died from natural causes before the autopsy findings.

The ODPP also reported that when police returned to the home in December 2023, the bedroom had been extensively altered, including new tiling, painting, and replacement of furniture and mattresses.

The ODPP said Silvera indicated that no one had told him he could not make changes to the room.

Silvera, then 52, was arrested and charged on January 18, 2024, and has remained in custody since his arrest.

The trial had originally been scheduled for January but was adjourned after the defence successfully applied for further examination of the ballistic evidence.

On Thursday, Chief Justice Sykes approved the guilty pleas to manslaughter on both counts.

After the hearing ended, a female relative of Mrs Silvera, seen outside the courtroom, was visibly distressed. She said the family was praying for justice and would comment further after sentencing.

Silvera’s lead attorney, King’s Counsel Peter Champagnie, said the matter was at a delicate stage and declined detailed comment. He is also represented by attorney Patrice Riley.

FULL STATEMENT - OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSEUCTIONS - JOLYAN SILVERA CASE

On the 2nd day of February 2026, the trial of the matter of Rex v Jolyan Silvera was scheduled to commence before the Honourable Mr. Justice Bryan Sykes, Chief Justice for the Island of Jamaica.

On said date, Mr. Silvera was pleaded to the Indictment charging him with:

1. Using a Firearm to Commit a Felony to wit: Murder; and (Count 1)

2. Murder of Mrs Melissa Silvera (Count 2)

In response to the charges, Mr. Silvera pleaded:

1. In respect of Count 1 – Not guilty of using a firearm to commit a felony to wit: Murder but guilty to Manslaughter

2. In respect of Count 2 - Not guilty to Murder but guilty to Manslaughter.

Upon hearing the pleas entered by Mr. Silvera, the Prosecution indicated to the Court that the Defence would have to provide the basis on which it is asking the Prosecution to accept a plea to the lesser offence of Manslaughter as it did not arise on the Prosecution’s case.

The case was then part-heard to the 3rd day of February 2026.

On the 3rd day of February 2026, Mr. Silvera was repleaded on count one of the indictment and to which he pleaded not guilty of using a firearm to commit a felony to wit: Murder but guilty to using a firearm to commit a felony to wit: Manslaughter.

On the night of the 2nd day of February 2026, the Defence provided a statement authored and signed by Mr. Silvera to the Prosecution. The statement in summary was that on the night of the 10th day of November 2023, Mr. Silvera and his wife, the deceased had an argument which got physical. He indicated that during the argument she blamed him as she always did for the death of their young son. He went on to state that during the argument she hurled several expletives at him and made derogatory statements about his sister and mother which he found to be provocative. He stated further that during the argument she made a comment about their children which he found to be the final straw and at that point he lost control discharged his weapon in her direction.

He stated that it was not his intention to hurt or kill her that night and that having done so he panicked and left the apartment. He stated that over the course of the days following her death, he thought about his children losing both parents and thus made the decision to not admit to what he had done.

On the 3rd day of February 2026, the Defence outlined the contents of the said statement to Court.

In response, the Prosecution made submissions on whether it was proper in law to accept the pleas entered by Mr. Silvera. The prosecutions case was based on circumstantial evidence and the ballistic findings.

The prosecution had evidence of the following:

1. What occurred before Mrs. Silvera was killed

2. What occurred after the deceased was killed; and

3. The subsequent events.

The prosecution did not have evidence of what happen at the time Mrs. Silvera was killed.

Having heard Mr. Silvera’s account of what took place when he shot the deceased, the prosecution took the decision after assessing the evidence and subject to the Court’s approval, to accept the plea to the lesser offence of Manslaughter for the following reasons:

1. That there is no evidence in the prosecution’s possession that can speak to what occurred at the residence when the deceased was shot and killed by the Defendant.

2. Having heard Mr. Silvera’s account, the prosecution would not have been able to evidentially negative the partial defence of provocation raised by him.

3. Further, the Prosecution is cognizant of the fact that in light of the account given by Mr. Silvera, having raised the partial defence of provocation the Court would have a duty to direct the jury on the defence of provocation and the effect it would have on the count of murder, that is to reduce it to manslaughter.

4. That having been guided by the authority of Gaynair Hanson v R [2014] JMCA Crim 1, the Prosecution took the view that where Mr. Silvera gives an account on a guilty plea that supports the offence in this case Manslaughter, the Court can properly accept the plea. In Gaynair Hanson above, the Applicant had pleaded guilty to Murder but maintained that he had not intended to kill the deceased. The Court in dealing with the issue of the Murder/Manslaughter was of the view that the Applicant’s version did not support a Murder conviction and therefore, the trial judge should not have accepted a plea to murder. The court was of the view that manslaughter was the more appropriate offence.

5. The Prosecution was further guided the authority of Pearlina Wright v R [1988] 25 JLR 221 which is a case dealing with the fact that a judge in a sentencing hearing should sentence the convict on the facts most favourable to convict. Though it is a case dealing with sentencing, the principle is applicable to Mr. Silvera’s case in that neither the Prosecution nor the Court could ignore the version given by Mr. Silvera, especially in circumstances where the Prosecution could not disprove the account given by him.

In the interests of justice and transparency, we have outlined the facts as constituted on the case file.

FACTS

Sometime after 10:30 pm on the 10th day of November 2023, Jolyan Silvera told his wife Mrs. Silvera and the children that he was leaving to attend a meeting and that he would return the following day. Mrs. Silvera told him he could not leave and an argument ensued (extracted from the statement of two of the children they shared). The adults swore at each other and then he left.

Sometime before 6AM on the 11th day of November 2023, one of the children, who was ten (10) years of age at the time went into his parents’ bedroom and discovered his mother’s lifeless body on the floor next to their bed. He noticed that there was blood coming from her orifices and that her dress was covered with blood. He ran from the bedroom and alerted his brother who accompanied him back to his parents’ bedroom where they both checked for signs of life from her body. They tried to make contact with their father, using the Messenger Kid Application on their digital device, and were eventually successful.

Mr. Silvera has indicated in a witness statement that he called the Stony Hill Police Station whilst on way home after he had spoken to his son.

Upon arrival at his house, at 2A Diamond Court, Stony Hill in the parish of Saint Andrew. Mr. Silvera went into his bedroom (based on the statements from his children) and “saw his wife in a sitting position with her head leaning forward at the side of the bed.” He touched her, spoke to her and found that she was not responding.

Sometime after, the First Responder, who was an officer of the Stony Hill Police Station arrived at the house and went into the bedroom where he saw the body of Melissa Silvera. He took a photograph of the body with his Samsung cellular telephone and Mr. Silvera cried out; he had Mr. Silvera cover the nude section of the body. The First Responder did not further examine the body as Mr. Silvera was still crying.

The First Responder, after learning from Mr. Silvera that Mrs. Silvera had no known medical condition, indicated that a post-mortem examination would be conducted to determine the cause of death. He then contacted the House of Tranquillity Funeral Home for the removal of the body. He then left.

When the morgue attendant arrived at the house and the body was removed and taken to the morgue.

A post-mortem examination was scheduled to take place on the 1st day of December 2023. On this date the pathologist discovered that there were scars on the body.

The post mortem examination was conducted on the 15th day of December 2023 at the Tranquillity Funeral Home. The pathologist noted that there were three gunshot wounds: one perforating gunshot wound to the front of the right thigh, one penetrating gunshot wound to the left side of the lower abdomen, and the third is a superficial penetrating gunshot wound to the right side of the lower abdomen. The pathologist removed two projectiles from her body which were handed over to the police. The pathologist opined that the immediate cause of death was multiple gunshot wounds.

The Detectives and the First Responder returned to Mr. Silvera’s home on the 16th day of December 2023. Upon entering the bedroom, it was noticed that the floor was now tiled, the furniture sprayed over, the mattress was replaced with a new one and the walls were painted; the children’s room was also tiled. Mr. Silvera indicated that no one had told him that he could not make changes to the room.

Mr. Silvera ’s iPhone and firearms, for which he held a licence, were taken by the police for examination and testing.

The projectiles removed from the body of Mrs. Silvera was compared to test fires taken from Mr. Silvera’s gun by the Ballistics expert in 2024. The expert saw level one matching (class and characteristics) and some amount of level two matching. As a result of his findings, the expert contacted FLA and requested the test fires in their Page 5 of 5 possession from Mr. Silvera’s glock pistol which were taken in 2013. A comparison was done between the test fires from FLA and the projectiles from the body of the deceased and they matched, i.e. they were fired from Mr Silvera’s glock pistol.

The Ballistics expert indicated that there was corrosion to the barrel of the firearm. The firearm had been inspected by FLA on the 29th of September 2023, and there were no signs of tampering.

At the conclusion of the ballistics examination, Mr. Silvera was arrested and charged for the offences of Using a Firearm to Commit a Felony and Murder.

Mr. Silvera was represented by Mr. Peter Champagnie K.C. and Miss Patrice Riley, whilst the Prosecution was represented by Mr. Dwayne Green, Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions and Miss. Debra Bryan, Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions.

Follow The Gleaner on X, formerly Twitter, and Instagram @JamaicaGleaner and on Facebook @GleanerJamaica. Send us a message on WhatsApp at 1-876-499-0169 or email us at onlinefeedback@gleanerjm.com or editors@gleanerjm.com.