Review law governing bench trials, urges advocates association

The Advocates’ Association of Jamaica (AAJ) is accusing the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) of using its authority to block judge-alone trials in a way that undermines justice and delays the legal process.

Amid these concerns, the AAJ is calling for an urgent review and reform of the law governing bench trials.

In a letter to the editor, AAJ President Tamika Harris warned that the current legal framework, which requires the consent of both the accused and the DPP for judge-alone trials in serious matters, is fostering injustice, particularly amid Jamaica’s extensive backlog of jury trials.

“The Advocates’ Association of Jamaica cannot remain silent in the face of what appears to be a troubling trend, the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in a manner that raises the possibility of shopping or searching for a tribunal more likely to convict,” Harris wrote.

She argued that accused persons should have the right to elect trial by a judge alone without needing prosecutorial approval.

“If an individual, whose liberty is at stake, chooses to forgo a jury and face a judge, that decision should be respected — subject only to judicial oversight to ensure it is informed and voluntary,” Harris said.

Harris contended that by refusing to consent to judge-alone trials, the DPP is denying accused persons access to speedier justice and effectively punishing them without conviction, as they are left languishing in custody for years awaiting trial.

The AAJ is proposing that the law be amended to allow accused persons the unilateral right to elect a judge-alone trial, provided a judge confirms that the choice is informed and voluntary. Alternatively, the association suggests that Parliament impose statutory timelines. If a jury trial cannot be scheduled within a set period, the accused should then be allowed to opt for a judge-alone trial regardless of the DPP’s position.

Harris noted that the constitutional role of the DPP, often described as a ‘minister of justice’, is to ensure justice is done, not to function as a partisan advocate seeking convictions.

“The role is to present evidence fairly, disclose exculpatory material, and respect the rights of the accused, while pursuing the public interest,” she stated.

“When the DPP refuses judge-alone trials, forcing accused persons into a clogged jury system, the perception created is deeply concerning, that the State is not merely prosecuting, but is strategically selecting the tribunal it believes will more readily convict. That undermines fairness and impartiality.”

Harris stressed that prolonged delay is not a mere technicality but a form of injustice, and that many accused who spend years in custody are often acquitted.

“Is the DPP seeking to endorse a system where an accused person can be punished without conviction?” she asked. “Anything less than reform entrenches a system where prosecutorial discretion distorts justice and erodes constitutional guarantees.”

“Justice is not measured by conviction rates,” Harris said. “Justice is measured by fairness, impartiality, and respect for constitutional rights. The DPP must not appear to be gaming the system. The people of Jamaica deserve better.”

In response, Director of Public Prosecutions Paula Llewellyn rejected the AAJ’s assertions and accused the association of misrepresenting the role and legal responsibilities of her office.

“I am shocked and disappointed at the tone and tenor of the AAJ’s letter,” Llewellyn said. “It misrepresents, mischaracterises, and is misleading.”

She emphasised that under the current law, judge-alone trials in serious offences can only proceed with the agreement of both the defence and the prosecution. This requirement, she argued, reflects a balanced approach that protects the rights of both the accused persons and victims.

“At the end of the day, the pendulum of justice swings not only in one direction – it swings in both directions,” Llewellyn said. “Not only towards the accused, who has rights, but also towards the victims, who also have rights.”

Referencing the high-profile Mario Deane case, Llewellyn said her office had actively encouraged the defence to pursue a judge-alone trial during and after the COVID-19 pandemic to avoid delays, but the defence counsel refused.

“We did our best to engage defence counsel to have a judge-alone trial ... and they refused,” she said. “They insisted that the matter be tried by a jury. That is a matter of record.”

Llewellyn added that in other cases, victims and witnesses have specifically requested jury trials, further complicating the decision-making process.

“We, too, have situations where witnesses or victims indicate that they would prefer the matter be tried by a jury,” she noted.

The DPP stressed that her office always seeks to act in the interest of justice, and described the AAJ’s public statement as unfair.

“The prosecutor’s role is to put forward the best available evidence,” she explained. “Yes, we are always mindful of the overriding objective, which is fairness to the accused. But in the 21st century, it is also recognised that victims have rights – and we must consider their perspectives in assessing what is appropriate in each case.”\

tanesha.mundle@gleanerjm.com