SENATOR A.J. Nicholson, Q.C., Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, said yesterday that the Government of Jamaica naturally accepted that the Privy Council decision in the Lambert Watson case "has binding force. As a result, the Government will be giving serious consideration to the question of whether and if the law should be amended" following yesterday's decision that the imposition of mandatory death sentences was unconstitutional.
In a statement, Mr. Nicholson said in part: "As an immediate result of this ruling, the sentence of death imposed on Lambert Watson will be set aside, and his case is to be returned to the Jamaican Supreme Court for that court to decide what sentences should be pronounced for the crimes for which Lambert Watson has been convicted.
"Also, for the future, it will be open to the local court, in capital murder cases, either to impose the death sentence or to impose a lesser punishment depending on the view the court takes of the murder and all the relevant circumstances. The judge will, in other words, have discretion as to what the sentence should be in each particular capital murder case.
"Today's ruling is essentially about the relationship between the mandatory death sentence and the Jamaican Constitution, but it will, of course, prompt discussions about whether the Privy Council is inherently opposed to the death penalty.
IMPORTANT IRONY
"The decision should also prompt reflection about an important irony. Jamaica's mandatory death penalty law has been found to be unconstitutional partly because it has not been 'saved' by the savings clause in Section 26 (8) of the Constitution.
"This savings clause indicates that a law that existed before Independence remains valid even if it may otherwise be contrary to the Constitution. Because Jamaica amended its mandatory death penalty law to tighten the category of persons who could be executed, the mandatory law was not treated as a law that existed before independence. In contrast, Trinidad and Tobago and Barbados have had their mandatory death penalty laws upheld by the Privy Council because their laws have not been changed since Independence.
"The decision in Lambert Watson v. The Queen does not abolish the death penalty in Jamaica. Rather, it seeks to indicate the manner in which the death penalty may be imposed. It will, however, also prompt consideration of the wider question of the death penalty. On this question, the Government notes that there have been recent calls for a debate on the subject."
Senator Nicholson has pointed out that any significant amendments to Jamaican law on the death penalty will require co-operation between the Government and the Opposition. Also, he has emphasised that the question of the death penalty will arise in the upcoming debate on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms when this matter comes to Parliament.
