Leela Ramdeen, Chair, CCSJ & Director, CREDI, addresses the social justice issues arising from the Grazette case (see below).
DNA continues to play a major role in the criminal justice system and has led not only to the conviction of many but to the exoneration and release of many innocent persons from prison.As has been pointed out by many, there is no doubt that there are justice issues relating to, for example, gathering DNA evidence, maintaining the integrity of the chain of custody, the transportation, storage, and retrieval of DNA profiles, the risk of contamination of crime scenes, and the need for effective training of those involved in the criminal justice system – law enforcement officers, prosecutors, defence attorneys, judges, forensic scientists, medical staff, victim advocates and so on. Nevertheless, it remains an important, powerful tool in the fight against crime and violence.
In T&T, The Administration of Justice (Deoxyribonucleic Acid) Act 2012 [Chap. 5:34] – An Act to repeal and replace the 2007 DNA Act) was passed by both Houses of Parliament, assented to on May 10, 2012 and is in force. See: http://www.ttparliament.org/legislations/a2012-05.pdf. Currently, there is before Parliament The Administration of Justice [Miscellaneous Amendment] Bill 2014), part of which proposes to amend the 2012 DNA Act.
The CCSJ notes in this Barbados case that Grazette “was convicted on November 21, 2006, of the murder of a young woman, Rosanna Griffith, and sentenced to death after a trial…On September 18, 2008, the Court of Appeal…dismissed Grazette’s appeal against conviction.” His further appeal against conviction was heard on February 6, 2009. At the conclusion of that hearing the appeal was dismissed but he was given special leave to appeal against the sentence of death. That appeal is still pending.
As the US Bishops have rightly stated, “Our response to crime is a moral test for our nation and a challenge for our Church. Our tasks are to restore a sense of civility and responsibility to everyday life, and promote crime prevention and genuine rehabilitation.”
CCSJ agrees that society has a right to protect itself from persons who commit heinous crimes and offenders must be held accountable. However, Catholics are pro-life – all life. Our Catechism (2267) draws on the words of St John Paul II in his encyclical, The Gospel of Life (1995), and states: “If…non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the State has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offence incapable of doing harm – without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself – the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity ‘are very rare, if not practically non-existent’.”
Around the world, 140 States have abolished the death penalty in law and practice but 13 of the 58 States which have retained it belong to the Greater Caribbean region – almost all are English-speaking. Trinidad & Tobago and Barbados still retain the mandatory death penalty for murder, although Barbados plans to abolish it.
It is to be noted that because of the effects of the Pratt & Morgan case (1994), Caribbean retentionist States have not carried out any execution for the past ten years, but the death penalty remains in their Criminal Statues. The Privy Council concluded in this Jamaican case that “in any case in which execution is to take place more than five years after sentence, there will be strong grounds for believing that the delay is such as to constitute ‘inhuman or degrading treatment’ and therefore unconstitutional. The effect of this case is that individuals who spent more than five years on Death Row cannot be executed” (Death Penalty Project).
And generic sildenafil india this page great outdoor exercise is just as important. Link building using this method requires that you write a truly snazzy 3-4 page article cialis generic overnight http://downtownsault.org/nails-2-opens-downtown/ that people would love. A super generic viagra in usa drug by definition should be a drug that is able to cure ED, then consulting a doctor is advisable. Some are even equipped to work like milking machines for added pleasure. cialis pill from india Also of note is the fact that Caribbean retentionist States consistently vote against the UN General Assembly resolutions on a moratorium on the use of the death penalty and have signed the Note Verbale, dissociating them from the moratorium.
At the opening of the 2012 Law Term, Chief Justice Ivor Archie said he “had yet to find a convincing argument in favour of the death penalty”.
Let us pray for a reduction of crime and violence in our land/world and work towards the regeneration of morals and values in our citizens.
CCJ embraces DNA evidence
A summary of the CCJ judgment in the case of Clyde Anderson Grazette v the Queen [2009] CCJ 2 (AJ) prepared by Monique Scott, Norman Manley Law School.
The Caribbean Court of Justice dismissed the appeal of Mr Clyde Anderson Grazette who was convicted for murder in Barbados. The prosecution’s case was mainly based on DNA evidence linking Grazette to the death of a young woman. Grazette argued that the judge was wrong to allow this evidence to be used at the trial because there was inconsistent testimony from the prosecution’s witnesses on what occurred between the time of the taking of the DNA sample in Barbados and the testing by the FBI in the USA (that is, the ‘chain of custody’). In particular, Grazette complained about significant differences in the evidence dealing with the number of DNA samples taken, the labelling and packaging of the samples and the handing over to the FBI for testing.
The CCJ rejected these arguments. It held that any inconsistencies in the chain of custody could be easily reconciled. The court held that the DNA evidence was properly admitted into evidence at the trial. The Court held that once the judge decided that it was likely that the DNA sample was not tampered with and that it matched the sample taken from the deceased, the evidence could be used by the prosecution. The Court also rejected the argument that the use of DNA evidence was prejudicial, noting that evidence is not prejudicial simply because it makes it more likely that the defendant will be convicted. The Grazette decision demonstrates that once there is clear evidence on the chain of custody the CCJ will not easily overturn a murder conviction based on a positive DNA sample.
The summary above is intended to assist the Caribbean public in learning more about the work of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ). It is not a formal document of the Court. The judgment of the Court is the only authoritative document and may be found at http://www.caribbeancourtofjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/cr1_2009.pdf.
