Tweet
Wed Dec 20, 2006
Mother of slain teenager denied a judicial review
The Appeal Court has ruled that it will not grant the family of slain teenager Janice Allen leave to take their case before the Judicial Review Court.
Millicent Forbes, the mother of Janice, had appealed to the Appeal Court to order a judicial review of the controversial acquittal of the policeman who was charged with the shooting death of her daughter.
Ms Forbes wanted the court to quash the 2004 not guilty verdict, claiming the verdict was obtained by tainted means.
But in its sixty page judgement on Wednesday, the Appeal Court said it could not reverse the decision of the jury.
The three-member panel of judges headed by Court of Appeal President, Paul Harrison, argued that the Chief Justice and Full Court which previously refused the application, were correct in their decisions.
The Appeal Court said the previous judges were powerless to grant the application because they were bound to act within the ambit of the law.
The judges argued that the Judicial Review Court could not quash the not guilty verdict of the Portland Circuit Court which is an equal body.
However, the judges had some sympathy for Ms Forbes in her legal battle.
Mr. Justice Cooke commended Ms Forbes in her struggle to get justice for her daughter.
He commented that she had brought into focus an area in the administration of justice which demands immediate attention.
He said legislation is needed to tackle tainted acquittals.
Mr. Justice Harrison went a bit further when he argued that the person who conveyed the misleading information to the prosecutor which resulted in the matter being dismissed should be investigated.
He argued that the law needs to be changed to deal with circumstances which arose in the Janice Allen case.
Janice was fatally shot by a member of a police party in South St. Andrew in 2000 during a reported gun battle between police and gunmen.
In April 2001 the Director of Public Prosecutions ruled that a policeman should be charged with murder for the death of the teenager.
When the matter came up for trial in 2004 the prosecution did not present a case and the judge instructed the jury to return a not guilty verdict
Mother of slain teenager denied a judicial review
The Appeal Court has ruled that it will not grant the family of slain teenager Janice Allen leave to take their case before the Judicial Review Court.
Millicent Forbes, the mother of Janice, had appealed to the Appeal Court to order a judicial review of the controversial acquittal of the policeman who was charged with the shooting death of her daughter.
Ms Forbes wanted the court to quash the 2004 not guilty verdict, claiming the verdict was obtained by tainted means.
But in its sixty page judgement on Wednesday, the Appeal Court said it could not reverse the decision of the jury.
The three-member panel of judges headed by Court of Appeal President, Paul Harrison, argued that the Chief Justice and Full Court which previously refused the application, were correct in their decisions.
The Appeal Court said the previous judges were powerless to grant the application because they were bound to act within the ambit of the law.
The judges argued that the Judicial Review Court could not quash the not guilty verdict of the Portland Circuit Court which is an equal body.
However, the judges had some sympathy for Ms Forbes in her legal battle.
Mr. Justice Cooke commended Ms Forbes in her struggle to get justice for her daughter.
He commented that she had brought into focus an area in the administration of justice which demands immediate attention.
He said legislation is needed to tackle tainted acquittals.
Mr. Justice Harrison went a bit further when he argued that the person who conveyed the misleading information to the prosecutor which resulted in the matter being dismissed should be investigated.
He argued that the law needs to be changed to deal with circumstances which arose in the Janice Allen case.
Janice was fatally shot by a member of a police party in South St. Andrew in 2000 during a reported gun battle between police and gunmen.
In April 2001 the Director of Public Prosecutions ruled that a policeman should be charged with murder for the death of the teenager.
When the matter came up for trial in 2004 the prosecution did not present a case and the judge instructed the jury to return a not guilty verdict
Comment