Dear Editor,
I am writing an open letter to Prime Minister Mitchell on behalf of CHRG(UK) in response to the decision of the Mercy Committee not to release Phyllis Coard and Kamau MacBarnette.
It was reported in the U.K. that following the decision of the Mercy Committee
Dr Terrence Marryshow was quoted as saying "It is a victory for justice because we believe as all of us know that they have been found guilty of the crimes...." However,anyone who was fortunate to hear the radio debate between Mr Leslie Pierre and Dr Marryshow before the decision was announced will have noticed that he was unable to give any real justification for the guilt of the 17 based on factual evidence. His justification was that the 17 were responsible for the collapse of the revolution,had moral responsibility for the deaths and therefore by default had to accept criminal responsibility also. This position is clearly nonsense,and it must be of concern to most Grenadians that one of the main campaigners against the release of the 17 is unable to muster a more convincing argument to justify his contention that the 17 are guilty.
However,we have some sympathy for Dr Marryshow’s predicament,as very little evidence was ever submitted at the trial to justify the guilty verdicts,and it for this reason that the 17 are being denied the opportunity to take their case to the Privy Council,because the verdicts will not stand up in any properly conducted court of law. The Government of Grenada must be aware that the decisions of the original trial would be overturned if a proper appeal is ever allowed,and that it would become clear that the State has sanctioned an abuse of the legal system for political ends.
It is of considerable concern to us that most Grenadians are still totally unaware of what actually transpired at the original trial and the subsequent appeal,and I will set out briefly some of our reasons for stating that the original trial was unfair and it’s decisions insupportable by the evidence.
The Constitution of Grenada provides that any person charged with a criminal offence that person is entitled to a fair hearing by an independent and impartial court. For this fundamental human right to be met we would argue that three elements must be met:-
The 17 strongly argue that their trial met none of these criteria. The case was heard by a Judge who was brought in to hear this one matter,and the composition of the jury was decided in the absence of the defendants by a Registrar who had initially been part of the Prosecution team of lawyers from an array of persons who had shouted abuse against the defendants calling them murderers and criminals. The Jurors were required to sign verdict sheets,breaching the fundamental principle of the right to secret deliberation,and we understand that these sheets subsequently went missing. The 17 were not represented at their trial,and spent much of it confined to their cells so that they were unable to hear the evidence against them.
During the trial,twelve of the Defendants alleged that they had been tortured during interrogations to force them into signing confessions.These written statements were presented as evidence in the court,despite their insistence that they were essentially false statements obtained under torture. These allegations were investigated in 1983,but the findings of the investigation have never been released,and the trial judge failed to ask the police officer whom conducted the investigation a single question before he ruled that the confessions had been freely given.
The only evidence against the members of the Central Committee was that of Cletus St Paul who claimed that on his arrival at Fort Frederick he saw the Central Committee member huddle together and then one member tells the soldiers the Prime Minister must be liquidated. These soldiers left promptly for Fort Rupert and arrived there 10-15 minutes later.According to his evidence,the soldiers would have arrived by 11-30AM. However,five other prosecution witnesses,five, gave evidence that the soldiers arrived some two hours later and this is borne out by records of the fire brigade who were called to Fort at 1.39PM.. The trial judge failed to point out this contradiction in evidence to the jury,neither were they advised that St Paul was under arrest for spreading false rumors which he stated he was asked to do by the Prime Minister.
A material prosecution witness,Errol George,was listed on the back of the indictment but never called by the prosecution,and this seriously prejudiced the defendants. At the Preliminary Hearing he gave evidence that substantially differed from that of Cletus St Paul in that he saw no meeting of Central Committee members nor heard any orders issued,yet the jury was denied the opportunity to hear his version of events. The Defendants were denied access to a large number of documents that were essential to their defence which were seized by the invading armed forces of the United States. Amongst these documents was the official duty Officers diary from Fort Frederick which would have shown how many Central Committee members were at Fort Frederick on 19th October and when they arrived. This document was key to being able to prove or disprove the evidence of Cletus St Paul,so why were the Defence denied access to it?
The original President of the Court of Appeal ,Mr Justice Haynes,indicated that he was so concerned about the evidence of Cletus St Paul that he intended to call him to the Court and question him himself. Sadly,he died before he was able to do so. This flimsy evidence,which is contradicted by other prosecution witnessess,is the only evidence on which the central Committee members were sentenced to hang.
Although the Defendants were afforded an appeal,despite the large payments to the three appeal judges no written judgement has ever been produced to justify their decisions to uphold the original trial verdicts,nor has any explanation ever been given to explain why this written judgement has never been produced. The former US Attorney General,Ramsey Clark,was present during the verbal Judgement of the Court of Appeal,and he described the decision as wholly political in context and tone and included no consideration of facts and law that made the entire trial proceedings illegal,false in its finding of fact and a corruption of justice. Mr Clark also indicated that the decision of the three appeal judges repeatedly misstates facts in the trial record. For example,they say that the record strikingly failed to name a single juror who actually sat in the trial as having uttered prejudicial remarks against the Defendants,when the record itself repeatedly shows that the Forman himself was a principle antagonist threatening the Defendants.
The 17 Defendants have been denied any further right of appeal by the OECS Court of Appeal,who clearly regard this case as an issue for Grenada alone. Who can blame them for not accepting the parcel when they can hear it ticking. However,their refusal means that the 17 are effectively denied the opportunity to take their case to the independent Privy Council and their only real chance of obtaining justice through the judicial system.
On his visit to the UK last year prime Minister Mitchell made great play of his desire to bring unity to Grenada,and we applauded this laudable aim. However,a man has to be judged by his actions not his words,and until the Grenada 17 are given justice there can be no unity in Grenada. Therefore we challenge the Prime Minister to do three things :-
Only by taking this action can the Prime Minister dispel the accusation that injustice has been done and that the Government is implicated in the denial of justice on political grounds.
Yours Sincerely,