By Barbara Gayle, Staff ReporterTHE "PAPER trials" in which the statements of absent or dead witnesses are admitted in evidence are being challenged by the Farquharson Institute of Public Affairs.
The institute filed a claim in the Supreme Court last week seeking redress under the Constitution for persons convicted under the 1995 Evidence (Amendment) Act which paved the way for "paper trials".
Respondents to the suit are the Attorney-General and the Director of Public Prosecutions.
It is the institute's contention that the amendment to the Act breaches Section 20 (6) (d) of the Constitution which states, in part, that every person charged with a criminal offence shall be afforded facilities to examine in person, or by his legal representative, the witnesses called by the prosecution.
Frank Phipps, Q.C., chairman of the institute, explained to The Gleaner yesterday that if the court found that the convicts' constitutional rights were breached, then the Court of Appeal would have to review the cases to ascertain whether the statements tendered were the only evidence against them.
The institute stated in the claim that it has interest in all matters concerning the rights of all citizens under the Constitution of Jamaica.
In its statement of claim, the institute stated that pursuant to the Act, the prosecution tendered documents in evidence as witness statements. Accused persons had been convicted on the basis of those documents. The accused persons were denied the facility to examine the maker of the statements in person or by their legal representative as to the truth of the contents of the statement.
The institute is seeking a declaration that the provisions of section 31 (D) of the Evidence (Amendment) Act, 1995 are ultra vires and contravene the Constitution of Jamaica. It is also seeking a declaration that the Act is inconsistent with section 20 (6) (d) of the Constitution, is illegal, void and of no effect.
"A declaration that accused persons who are tried and convicted on the basis of documents admitted in evidence as witness statements pursuant to the Evidence (Amendment) Act, 1995 were denied a fair hearing at trial by not being afforded the facility to examine in person, or by his legal representative, the witness called by the prosecution," is another declaration being sought.
The Evidence (Amendment) Act makes provision for statements and depositions to be admitted in evidence when witnesses are dead, or cannot attend court for special reasons.
