All right. So.

Good morning,
Mr. Roberts. How are you this
morning?

Good morning, Meltino.

Wonderful, wonderful. And if you

Certainly. Well, I
have been a lawyer now for
almost 20 years. Oh, dear. I
qualified. I did the bar in the
UK in 2007, and then I returned
to Jamaica and passed the bar in
Jamaica, practiced in the courts
in Jamaica for several years
before moving to the Netherlands
and practicing at an
international level at the icty.
Okay, thank you. That is quite
an extensive history. So in your
experience, how often does the
jury system actually achieve
fair and impartial outcomes, and
what factors most influence
these outcomes? Good question. I
think the jury system most of
the time gets it right. Okay. I
think it is the reason for that
is not necessarily the jewelry
itself, but that. Although that
can have an impact. But I think
it's the. The systems of checks
and balances which we have in
our judicial system. Yes. So
normally of a trial, in any
trial or hearing which involves
a jury, the judge has played a
important role because he
instructs the jury. Right. On
what they should consider in
relation to the facts of the
case and what they should
consider in relation to the law,
which he is the authority on.
However, I think the principle
of a jury trial that where.
Particularly in a criminal case.
Yes. Where an individual should
be tried and found guilty or not
guilty by a selection of his
peers in society is an important
principle, and one which I don't
think we should totally abandon.
However, there are challenges,
and some of these challenges can
be and have been. Where juries
can be tampered with. Yes. There
is intimidation. That has
happened in the past. Yes. Where
members of juries have been
bribed, have been influenced or
intimidated one way or another.
Oh, yeah. And so that's an
argument that some people say,
well, you know, a jury can be
influenced to come to a
particular conclusion. There is
less of a risk of such influence
if you're looking at a judge
only trial. Yes. The other
challenge that jury trials
present, and I have experienced
this during my time practicing
in Jamaica, is that quite often
it can be difficult to find
people who are willing to serve.
Yes. Very often when summons are
sent out, people ignore the
summons. People find all sorts
of excuses not to serve. Yes.
The stipend that jurors are
given for the days when they're
unable to work, particularly if
you're a professional, is not
perhaps not an incentive enough
for people to serve. You know,
one should want to serve out of
a sense of civic duty. But let's
face it, if you are a single
parent and you, your children
depend on you being able to work
as an entrepreneur, to be able
to send them to school, then
serving on a jury trial for two
weeks may not be in your best
interest. And so that is also
another challenge. I see. But
for the most part, winning,
putting everything in the
balance. Yes. I believe that the
jury trials should still be an
important part of the legal
process all day. Noted, noted. I
see. So I see. I heard in your
very extensive presentation a
while ago, you mentioned the
willingness to serve and that,
you know, the decision of a man
is left to his peers in society.
But I wonder at times if jurors,
especially in Jamaica, are able
to understand certain lethal
jargon, lethal instructions and
evidence presented to them. And
if not, how does this impact the
fairness of the verdicts? Yeah,
that. That can be a challenge,
particularly if you have very
complex evidence. Yes. Being
presented. Right. But I would
argue then in any jury trial,
the judge is still present and
it's the role of the judge to
ensure that he explains clearly
law or any legal jargon or the
legal principles which are to be
applied. Okay. I think we also
need to give credit to the
average Jamaica. I think people
think that, you know, Jamaicans
are not learning and we don't
have any sense and all. But
look, I, I disagree. I think the
average person, if you explain
something to them clearly
enough, they have the ability to
reason and to come to the right
conclusion. And I think most of
the time, if not all the time,
and I think if there is any
responsibility to explain the
law or to explain legal
principles, that responsibility
is both on council, defence
counsel and prosecution counsel
to try to not make things too
complicated. Right. So that the
jury will understand the points
you are trying to make as
counsel. And then the judge, in
his summing up, his summation
before instructing the jury to
make a decision to ensure that
he explains everything. In
addition to that, there's also
the possibility for the jury,
through the foreman, to ask the
judge questions if there is
anything that is unclear. So I
don't think that is much of a
challenge. Okay, noted. I see.
So do you believe that the
social background or biases of
jurors affect the equitable
distribution of justice,
especially in high profile cases
such as the Adija Palmer case,
Even though, you know, we know
about the sequestering of the
jury, but do you believe that
certain voices can still come
into them even though they're
not away from the regular world,
but I mean, you know, their own
personal volition, their own
personal beliefs, such as
religious beliefs, race, gender,
all of those things. Do you
believe that they play a role in
the equitable distribution of
justice? I do believe that they
play a role, but I think that as
it should be, because any jury
should represent a cross section
of society. And in society you
have people from all walks of
life with all sorts of biases
and so on. In jury selection,
there is a process during which
both the prosecution, defense
and the judge have the ability
to disqualify some jurors. Yes.
Based on a series of questions,
based on their background, based
on any perceived by us or
expressed bias that the juror
may have. But I think for the
most part, once a jury is
selected and both the
prosecution, the judge and the
defense are fairly happy with
the composition, then I believe
most of the time that, you know,
a decision is reached which is
fair. Okay, I see what you. The
peculiarity that you may have in
some particular cases. And you
mentioned the Adija Palmer case.
Yes. In particular, when you
have a high profile case. Yes.
That is all over the media,
which you know, may have had a
protracted investigation which
everybody would have seen on tv.
Yes. Or you have an individual
who is well known like Mr.
Palmer, then the challenge you
have there is that can you ever
really select a jury which going
to be totally impartial and have
no preconceived notions about
the case. That's going to be
very difficult. The ideal
situation, of course, in any
trial is that when the. The jury
is being addressed for the first
time on day one of the trial
that this is the first time
they're hearing about the
matter. And so they have an
impartial approach. In a case
like the Palmer case, it was
worldwide. That's virtually
impossible. Everybody would have
either heard of him before or
have some view of him one way or
another. Yes. Or have heard of
the investigation of the case or
him being charged at one way or
another. So. But having said
that, I think the case 90% of
the time is decided based on the
facts of the case. In that case,
you have a particular issue with
the jury all day where one juror
indicated that they were
approached. Yes. Right. And or
no. The foreman of the jury
indicated that one of the jurors
was approached. Yes. And that
juror was removed, but the rest
of the jewelry remained, which
ended up being the issue which
caused his conviction to be
vacated. Oh, dear. All right,
thank you so much for your
valuable responses as I continue
with the interview. You
mentioned the process of
selecting a jury. And, you know,
we have the challenge for TAs
and the preemptory challenge,
Challenges to jury selection,
challenge for TAs, you know, you
actually have a reason mostly
after conducting void or
investigation. Right. And for
the preemptor, you just look on
the person and you disqualify
them for whatever reason,
whether it be gender, race,
whatever reason you may find.
So, as an attorney, which one do
you believe is more effective in
dating an unbiased jury? I don't
think one is more effective than
the other. I think it depends on
the circumstance. So, for
example, yes. Let us take the
Palmer case. Now, I could always
conduct a voir dire and
challenge a particular juror
based on answers to questions if
I believe that those are
unfavorable to my side,
whichever side I am on as
counsel. Okay. However, if I. A
juror is called, usually the
name of the juror is given and
their profession is given. Yes.
If the juror is called who and
that person said they are an
entertainer, I may challenge as
a matter of fact, based on a
particular person's association
or perceived association, and
that may cause a bias one way or
another. I see. I see another
reason. Maybe if the person, for
example, Mr. Palmer, is from
Waterford in St Catherine, if
there's somebody who lives them
in that community and is from
that community, I may also
challenge for that reason,
without asking them the other
question. I don't believe it is
right necessarily to challenge
on the basis of the look of a
person. There may be some cases
where you may prefer more men on
the jury than women. Yes. More
women on the jury than men. Yes.
And so council may challenge
jurors on the basis of gender.
Oh, dear. Because either they
believe there will be a bias.
Yes. Based on the nature of the
case, or they would prefer to
have more men on the jury who
may. For example, if I have a
man who is defending his
daughter from an attack. Right.
I may want to have more men who
are fathers, who understand the
situation between the ages of 30
and 50, who may have daughters
and who will understand that
kind of circumstance that I
would want to have young women
on jewelry. So that type of
thing. It really depends on the
circumstances. I see. All right,
thank you so much for answering
that question. The next question
is the final question for this
interview, and it is a
suggestion question. So if you
had the authority to reform the
Jamaican jury system, what
specific changes, whether
procedural or educational, would
you implement to improve its
effectiveness to different
thesis around. I think. I think
the jury pool in Jamaica should
Be widened. I see. Up until
recently, I believe there was to
be a change, but up until
recently, I think people who are
attorneys and former judges and
so on couldn't serve. Yes, I
believe that that shouldn't be
the case. I believe the more
informed people you have on
juries would enhance the system.
I do believe that there should
be some cases which are
particularly complex that
perhaps should be tried by a
judge alone and taken out of the
hands of a jury. Yes. But that
there should be an automatic
right of appeal for the accused
in those cases. For example, in
gun court cases, simple cases of
possession of firearm or
shooting cases, those trials are
already done by a single judge.
And that system has worked well
over the past few years. I
believe that some other trials
which are now done by a jury
could be done by a single judge,
which would lead to greater
efficiency. And particular cases
where you have complicated
evidence, like forensic
evidence, like in the Paaba
case, where you have recordings
and chain of custody issues and
so on and so forth, I think some
of those cases can be tried by
either a panel of judges or a
single judge, but with an
automatic right of appeal for
the accused. Okay, I see. So
following that, what other cases
do you believe should be solely
judged? Only trials. Rape,
incest, Those cases. Murder or.
It depends on the extent. I. I
don't think that. Sexual
offenses. Yes, I believe a jury
should still. For some of those
cases and jury should still try
that. I think it's there. It's
important to have the views of
the wider society. I think
murder cases, for the most part,
should be tried by a jury. I
think that should be the
default. If the case is
particularly complex, where you
already know at the case
management stage that you're
going to be dealing with all
sorts of forensic reports and,
you know, complicated evidence,
I think then you can consider a
panel of judges to try that
particular case. I see. And the
final question of this interview
is, do you believe that in the
fullness of time, juries should
be empowered to meet sentencing
decisions? Because, as you know,
most juries decide on verdicts.
So do you believe that the
indecision on a verdict, they
should be reposed with the
confidence to decide on how much
time should be spent by a little
guilty? No, I don't. I don't
believe that. I believe that
should be the purview of the
judge alone. Oh, dear. Because
the judge is the person who is
best placed to consider all the
factors that go into sentencing.
So the aggravating factors,
including the person's record on
antecedents, as well as
mitigating factors that there
may be and at any discount that
may be applicable. And I think
the judge would have the
experience, experience and the
legal know how to be able to
apply the sentencing principles
properly. So I think that should
remain with the judge. All
right. Thank you so much for
participating in this interview.
It was my pleasure to have
interviewed such a learned
attorney. And these findings
will be tolerated and presented
in my report. Thank you so much
for your assistance stands, Mr.
Roberts. My pleasure, Valentino.
Thank you for the time. And I
hope you found the answers
helpful. Indeed, everybody will
agree with me, but those are my
pleasure.