CCPR/C/44/D/272/1988

G. Communication No. 272/1988, Alrick Thomas v. Jamaica (views

adopted on 31 March 1992, at the forty-fourth session)

Submitted byi

Alrick Thomas (represented by counsel)

Alleged victim;

The author

State party:

Jamaica

Date of communication;

12 January 1988

Date of decision on admissibility: 24 July 1989

The Human Rights Committee, established under article 28 of the

international Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,

Meeting on 31 March 1992,

Having concluded its consideration of communication No. 272/1988,

submitted to the Human Eights Committee by Mr. Alrick Thomas under the

Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,

Having taken into account all written information made available to it by

the author of the communication and by the State party.

Adopts its views under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol.

Facts as submitted by the author

1#

The author of the communication is Alrick Thomas, a Jamaican citizen

currently imprisoned in the Kingston General Penitentiary. He claims to be a

victim of a violation by Jamaica of his human rights. He is represented by

counsel.

2.1 The author, an ex-constable of the Manchester Police Force, states that

he was arrested on 25 October 1984 a/ and on 29 October 1984 he was charged

with the murder of Leroy Virtue. The author claims that the deceased was shot

incidentally, in the course of a brief melee outside a bar, after a man who

had been in the company of the deceased had resisted the author's attempt to

arrest him.

2.2 For the duration of the preliminary investigation, the author was granted

bail, which was subsequently extended until the beginning of the trial on

27 January 1985, On that day, the author was still without legal

representation because of lack of financial means. The Court was so informed

and the trial judge instructed the clerk of the Court to ask

Mr. Alonzo Manning, a legal aid lawyer, to attend court on 29 January 1985.

The author first met Mr. Manning in the courtroom on the day of the hearing.

The Judge granted counsel permission to consult with his client in private.

The author claims that he explained his case to him, but that counsel did not

take any notes. When the hearing resumed on the same day, counsel allegedly

did not present all the facts to the judge and the jury. Furthermore, he did

not challenge the jury, although "in-laws" and close acquaintances of the

deceased allegedly were among the jury members. Thus, the author argues, the

jury was biased against him.

-253-

2.3 On 1 February 1985, the author was found guilty of murder and sentenced

to death. The author's appeal was dismissed by the Jamaican Court of Appeal

on 14 October 1985. On 6 May 1991, the State party commuted the author's

death sentence to life imprisonment.

2.4 With regard to the circumstances of the appeal, the author claims that he

was not properly informed of the date of the hearing of his appeal. On

14 October 1985, counsel visited him and told him that his appeal had been

dismissed earlier that day. On the next day/ he received a letter from the

registrar of the Court of Appeal informing him that his case was due to be

heard in the week beginning 14 October 1985. According to the author, this

meant that he was prevented from instructing his counsel and from attending

the appeal personally. Although the author had appealed on the ground that he

had not been given a fair trial, counsel had withdrawn that ground, allegedly

without consulting with the author.

Complaint

3.

Although the author does not invoke any article of the International

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, it appears from his submission that he

claims to be a victim of a violation by Jamaica of article 14 of the Covenant.

State party's observations and author's comments

4.

The State party, by submission, dated 20 July 1988, contends that the

author's communication is inadmissible on the ground of non-exhaustion of

domestic remedies, claiming that he could still petition the Judicial

Committee of the Privy Council for leave of appeal. The State party adds that

legal aid would be available for that purpose pursuant to section 3 of the

Poor Prisoners' Defence Act.

5.

in a submission dated 30 January 1989, the author's counsel explains that

a petition for special leave to appeal was in fact filed with the Judicial

Committee of the Privy Council on behalf of the author early in 1987. The

application had been for interlocutory relief, to the effect that the Court of

Appeal of Jamaica be ordered to issue a written judgement in the case.

Notwithstanding the interlocutory nature of the application, the Privy Council

dealt with it as a petition for leave to appeal and dismissed it on

19 February 1987, although no submissions hact been made on behalf o£ the

author on the merits of the case. Counsel therefore submits that all

available domestic remedies have been exhausted.

6.

In a further submission, dated 14 April 1989, the State party

acknowledges that the author's petition for special leave to appeal to the

Privy Council was dismissed. It reiterates, however, that the communication

is inadmissible on the ground of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, since

the author has not taken any action to pursue his constitutional remedies in

the Jamaican Supreme (Constitutional) Court, pursuant to section 25 of the

Jamaican Constitution.

Committee's admissibility decision

7.1 At its thirty-sixth session, the Committee considered the admissibility

of the communication. It noted the State party's contention that the

-254-

communication was inadmissible because of the author's failure to apply for

constitutional redress. In tne circumstances of the case, the Committee found

that recourse to the Supreme (Constitutional) Court under section 25 of the

Constitution was not a remedy available to the author within the meaning of

article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol.

7.2 On 24 July 1989, accordingly, the Committee declared the communication

admissible in respect of article 14 of the Covenant.

Review of admissibility decision

8.

The State party, in its submission dated 10 January 1990, maintains that

the communication is inadmissible since constitutional remedies under

section 25 are still open to the author.

9.

In his reply to the State party's submission, counsel submits that the

constitutional remedy is not available in practice because of the author's

lack of funds and the unavailability of legal aid.

10.1 The Committee observes that the same issues concerning admissibility

have already been examined by the Committee in its views on communications

Hos. 230/1987 (Raphael Henry v. Jamaica^ b/ afld 3S4/19B6 <ft.ston Little v.

Jamaica), c/ In the circumstances of those cases, the Committee concluded

that a constitutional motion was not an available and effective remedy within

the meaning of article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol, and that,

accordingly, the Committee was not precluded from examining the merits.

10.2 In the instant case, considering that the State party does not provide

legal aid for constitutional motions, the Committee finds that a

constitutional motion would not constitute an available and effective remedy

within the meaning of article 5, paragraph 2 <b), of the Optional Protocol,

and thus confirms its decision on admissibility.

Examination of the merits

11.1 As to the substance of the author's allegation of violations of his

human rights, the Committee notes with concern that the State party has

confined itself to the observation that the Committee is not competent to

evaluate issues of facts and evidence; it has not addressed the author's

specific allegations that his right to a fair trial was violated. The

Committee is of the opinion that the summary dismissal of the author's

allegations, in general terms, does not meet the requirements of article 4,

paragraph 2, of the Optional Protocol.

11.2 With respect to the alleged violations of article 14 of the Covenant,

three issues are before the Committeej

(a) whether the composition of the

jury violated the author's right to a fair trial; <b) whether the author was

allowed adequate time and facilities to prepare his defence; and (c) whether

the author was denied effective representation during his appeal.

11.3 In respect of the first claim, the Committee notes that while the author

alleges that the jury was biased because of the presence of acquaintances and

"in-laws" of the deceased, his counsel did not raise any objections. The

Committee finds therefore that this allegation has not been substantiated.

-255-

11.4 In respect of the second claim, the Committee recalls that the right of

an accused person to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of

his defence is an important element of the guarantee of a fair trial and a

corollary of the principle of equality of arms. Sufficient time and

facilities must be granted to the accused and his counsel to prepare the

defence for the trial; this requirement applies to all the stages of the

judicial proceedings. The determination of what constitutes "adequate time

and facilities" requires an assessment of the individual circumstances of each

case. In the instant case, it is uncontested that the author's defence was

prepared on the first day of the trial. The Committee cannot ascertain,

however, whether the Court actually denied counsel adequate time for the

preparation of the defence. Similarly, the material before the Committee does

not disclose whether either the author or his counsel complained to the trial

judge that the time or facilities were inadequate. The Committee therefore

finds no violation of article 14, paragraph 3 (b), of the Covenant during the

trial at first instance.

11.5 In respect of the third claim concerning the author's representation

before the Court of Appeal, it is uncontested that the author was only

informed about the date of the hearing after it had taken place. He was

therefore unable to communicate with his representative with regard to the

appeal. Taking into account the combination of circumstances in the instant

case, the Committee is of the view that the appeal proceedings did not meet

the requirements of a fair trial, tinder article 14, paragraph 1 of the

Covenant.

12, The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5, paragraph 4, of the

Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Sights,

is of the view that the facts before the Committee disclose a violation of

article 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant.

13, It is the view of the Committee that, in cases in which a capital

sentence may be pronounced, the obligation of States parties to observe

rigorously all the guarantees for a fair trial set out in article 14 of the

Covenant admits of no exception. The Committee is of the opinion that

Mr. Alrick Thomas is entitled to an appropriate remedy.

14, The Committee wishes to receive information, within 90 days, on any

relevant measures taken by the State party in respect of the Committee's

views.

[Done in English, French, Russian and Spanish, the English text being the

original version.]

Notes

a./

According to the judgement of the Court of Appeal, the murder

occurred on 25 November 1984, and the author was arrested on the same day.

b_/

See sect. B above, communication No. 230/1987, views adopted on

1 November 1991.

£/

See sect. J below, communication No. 283/1988, views adopted on

1 November 1991.

-256-