THE EDITOR, Sir:
I WRITE in response to your editorial of November 1, 2002, wherein you sought answers on behalf of the public in the 'Manslaughter' case.
Though it is correct that Mr. Anthony Gurdon is a "deportee," you were clearly not advised that the deceased was called 'Bud,' short for 'Prison Bud' due to his numerous convictions and sojourns in and out of Her Majesty's prison for serious offences inclusive of wounding, rape and murder.
Furthermore, the house both men shared did not belong to Ivan Gurdon but was family property left by other members of the family when they migrated and which both men were allowed to share.
That the Crown would have had serious hurdles to overcome in disabusing any reasonable tribunal's mind in respect of the several acts of provocation extending over a two-year period and culminating in the events of the final night was acknowledged and accepted by all parties present in Court. The evidence consisted of written and oral admissions made by the accused persons and statements from potential witnesses which detailed acts which would and did cause my client to lose his self-control. There were persistent harassment, threats, attacks with machetes and the destruction of my client's motor-vehicle windscreen.
There was an attempt to set fire to the house while my client was asleep therein and which neighbours averted in the nick of time. In an effort to get exclusive control of the house, Mr. Ivan Gurdon would knock continuously on the walls throughout the night so that my client would be forced to go elsewhere to sleep in peace. The acts done which precipitated the offence were renewed threats made on the night of the incident, to chop up my client and burn down the house. These acts, so consistent with the deceased prior aggression and with acts for which he had served time and for which he demonstrated no remorse, provoked my client to act.
There was also the legal question of the lack of intent to kill on the part of the co-accused and the Crown conceded a difficulty in establishing in them the common intent to kill where the evidence revealed an intent to beat: thus the issue of manslaughter was raised and accepted by the Court in relation to them.
The formal verdict was returned by a jury after being given directions from the Learned Trial Judge; consequently Regina v. Lloydel Richards would not have availed those with other views and who were not present in Court.
To quote one of our most erudite and humane jurists, retired President of the Court of Appeal Mr. Justice Rattray:-
"The responsibility in the State to be level-headed and guided by principles at the most traumatic of times in terms of public reactions, with respect to the measures which it institutes to deal with social problems, outweighs by far the clamour in the society itself, for drastic and indeed sometimes barbarous treatment...
I wish us to remind ourselves that we can achieve law and order in our societies and yet fail to achieve justice.
I am, etc.,
VALERIE C. NEITA-ROBERTSON (Mrs.)
Attorney-at-law
53 Church Street
Kingston
