FREE THE GRENADA 17
As the October scenario grips us once again I read with great interest the statement made by Justice Brian Alleyne at the opening of the 1999 October Assizes.In observing certain trends emerging at the Bar, Justice Alleyne had this to say: "It is of paramount importance that jurors come to their tasks with open minds, free of prejudice planted by public discussions of the case on which they are called upon to adjudicate." He further stated that "It is an offence punishable on indictment to publish, either verbally or by writing, comments relating to pending cases, which are calculated to prejudice the fair trial of those cases, and so interfere with the course of justice."Very profound words in my opinion! But, unfortunately, Justice Alleyne, are these practice just emerging? Have they not become an accepted norm in Grenada since the Maurice Bishop Murder Trial? In fact as I read your deep statement I couldn’t help calling to mind this the most prominent case ever to be heard in the courts of Grenada. There is no case in the history of Grenada, and perhaps in the history of the entire Caribbean, which received such prolonged pre-trial publicity. And, not one single person or entity was punished for "either verbally or by writing" "comments relating to" that case which were "calculated to prejudice the fair trial" of those charged, " and so interfere with the course of justice."
In their pre-trial hearings the defendants argued that the media was engaged in an organised, pre-trial campaign which effectively prejudiced the minds of all Grenadians! Posters with pictures of the defendants naked to the waist, blind folded and handcuffed, were deliberately stuck up all over the country branding the accused as mass murderers. Radio and TV stations as well as newspapers seemed to work over time to convince the entire population of Grenada that all those charged were guilty. Then on top of that all, a lawyer, who days before was sitting on the prosecution bench, was chosen to select a panel of jurors from that highly charged and prejudiced population. The defendants, felt that they were being treated unfairly and that their rights, such as is now being referred to by Justice Alleyne, were being infringed upon. They filed motions before the court charging that their rights to a fair trial were being permanently eroded. What is most disturbing about this is the fact that the judge of the day apparently saw nothing wrong with the pre-trial publicity. Every motion drawing this anomaly to the court was struck down with impunity. It was ruled that this massive pre-trial publicity did not interfere with the defendants right to a free and fair trial.
I ask any reasonable man to tell me, which juror in Grenada could have "come to their tasks with open minds, free of prejudice planted by public discussions of the case on which they are called upon to adjudicate" by the time the Maurice Bishop Murder Trial was heard? Many people, still unclear of the events of October, 83, are calling for further investigations. Doesn’t this indicate that the trial failed to deliver justice? It is very heartening to note that today’s Justices are concerned about pre-trial publicity. I remain convinced, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that The Grenada 17 did not receive a free and fair trial.On this ground and on the ground of National Reconciliation and others, I once again join in the call with many rationally thinking Grenadians to correct the injustices of their trial and free them all. The Grenada 17 has shown remorse. They have spent sixteen hard years in jail and suffered too. Criminal justice requires that they be freed. This is what would have happened long ago in any truely democratic country.