[Deathpenalty]death penalty news --- worldwide

[Joerg Sommer]

death penalty news

July 8, 2004


JAMAICA:

Death penalty ruling pleases rights activists

Ruling will have implications for scores of death row inmates	

Human rights activists welcomed yesterday's decision that abolishes 
automatic death penalty in Jamaica, and government conceded that the ruling 
by the law lords will re-open debate on the future of the death penalty, 
for which the Patterson administration has been firmly in favour.

"We're quite pleased with the decision," said Dr Lloyd Barnett, the 
constitutional lawyer who is chairman of the Independent Jamaican Council 
for Human Rights (ICHR).

"It establishes a principle which is consistent with our concept of human 
rights and fairness in the judicial system and the administration of 
justice," Barnett said.

In their ruling yesterday, a nine-member panel that included a retired 
Jamaican chief justice, Edward Zacca, did not prohibit the death penalty, 
but said that where people are convicted of capital murder, they must have 
the opportunity to attempt to persuade the court that they should not hang.

".It has to be recognised that section 3 (1A) of the amended (Offences 
Against the Person) Act remains valid to the extent that it authorises the 
imposition of that (death) sentence," the Privy Council said in its ruling. 
"It will therefore be open to the court in these cases either to impose the 
death sentence or to impose a lesser punishment, depending on the view it 
takes of the crime which the defendant committed and all the relevant 
circumstances.

"The judge may be asked to hear submissions, and if appropriate, evidence 
about these matters before he takes his decision as to what sentence should 
be."

The decision arose from an appeal filed by Lambert Watson who was convicted 
for the 1997 murder in Hanover of his common-law wife, Eugenie Samuels, and 
their daughter, Georgina.

But the ruling will have implications for scores of death row inmates who 
will now likely have an opportunity to now apply to the court for a review 
of their sentences.

There, however, was no immediate signal from the government on how it would 
proceed on this issue, although the attorney-general's department raised 
the prospect of legislative changes.

"The attorney-general (A J Nicholson) has indicated that the government of 
Jamaica naturally accepts that the Privy Council decision has binding 
force, and that as a result the government will be giving serious 
consideration to the question of whether the law should be amended..." the 
attorney-general's office said in a statement.

Ironically, it was Jamaica's move a dozen years ago to differentiate 
between capital and non-capital murder that opened the door for the Privy 
Council to rule that the automatic death penalty for certain categories of 
murder was constitutional, while, in related cases from Barbados and 
Trinidad & Tobago held it to be legal.

In fact, the apparent anomaly triggered minority rulings in the cases by 
three of the judges - Lord Nicholas of Birkenhead, Lord Bingham of Cornhill 
and Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe.

While they agreed with the majority that automatic death penalty was cruel 
and inhumane and ultra vires of the constitution, in the case of Jamaica, 
they arrived at that position by a different route.

The majority held that the 1992 amendment to establish capital and 
non-capital murder had removed from it the 'saving' section provided by 
section 26(8) of the constitution that laws which were in force before 
Jamaica's independence remained in place. The automatic death penalty was 
in force.

Government lawyers had argued that the amendment had not essentially 
changed the law for it did not create a new offence.

The majority disagreed saying that "the law which was in force immediately 
before the appointed day (August 6, 1962) was no longer the law. The 
appellant was sentenced to death under the law which was set out in the 
amendment contained in the 1992 Act".

The dissenters argued that the more relevant application should have been 
Section 4 (1) of the Jamaican (Constitution) Order in Council which 
required that at the time of independence existing laws "be construed with 
such adaptations and modifications as may be necessary to bring them in 
conformity with the constitution".

"One strange, and to our mind regrettable, implication of the majority 
decision in Matthew, Boyce and Joseph (the cases from Barbados and Trinidad 
& Tobago) and the present appeal is that Jamaica could have succeeded in 
maintaining an objectionable nineteenth century law if it had not attempted 
to mitigate its harshness," the dissenters said.

Yesterday's ruling was the latest in a series of rulings by the Privy 
Council which Caribbean governments have viewed to be ideological attacks 
on the death penalty, starting with the mid-1990s Pratt and Morgan ruling 
from Jamaica when the UK-based judges held that an inmate could not be held 
on death row for more than five years.

They have more recently angered governments with other cases, such as those 
two years ago when they upheld the claim by Patrick Reyes from Belize and 
Peter Hughes and Newton Spence, from St Lucia and St Vincent, respectively, 
that their automatic death sentences were unconstitutional. Belize has the 
equivalent to capital and non-capital murders but not the Eastern Caribbean 
states.

In another ruling, the Privy Council held that people sentenced to death 
and who apply for mercy must be allowed to argue their cases and have 
access to the information presented about them, prompting the Jamaican 
government to promise constitutional amendment to prevent what the 
government said would amount to another trial.

Barbados has amended its constitution to limit such manoeuvrings by death 
row inmates, and received backhanded applause for its approach from 
yesterday's dissenters, who felt that the majority had provided Bridgetown 
with a loop-hole.

"If departure from fundamental human rights is desired, that is the way it 
should be done," they said. "The constitution should be amended explicitly. 
Departure from fundamental rights entrenched in the constitution should not 
be carried through by misapplication of transitional saving clauses."

(source: Jamaica Observer)


===================

IRAQ:

Iraq wants limited death penalty

Iraq is studying how to reinstate the death penalty for a limited period, 
but the decision is not linked to the trial of former leader Saddam 
Hussein, Iraq’s interim prime minister said in comments published on 
Wednesday.

“We want a restricted death penalty, for a limited time, until there are 
elections and Iraqis can decide for themselves,” Iyad Allawi told Spanish 
daily El Pais in an interview. He said the interim government had not yet 
made a decision on how the death penalty, suspended during the US-led 
occupation, should be implemented.

“When Saddam was in power, people were condemned to death just for speaking 
ill of him. We want to abolish those extremes and limit capital punishment 
to very concrete cases and for a limited time. We are thinking, for 
example, about (what to do) in the case of murder,” he told the newspaper. 
He said the decision was unrelated to the trial of Saddam — accused of war 
crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide — but was meant to deal with 
“indiscriminate murdering by terrorists”.

The interim government on Wednesday signed into effect a new security law 
giving itself wider powers to combat militants.

(source: Reuters / Daily Times, Pakistan)