In an unprecedented move yesterday, death row inmate Lester Pitman is seeking to compel Chief Justice Ivor Archie and the Court of Appeal to deliver the judgment in the appeal against his conviction which is now almost four years overdue. Pitman, who was convicted in 2004 alongside Daniel Agard, for the murders of agriculturalist John Cropper and two of his in-laws, is contending that the delay has breached his constitutional rights to life, liberty and security and to equality before the law.
He also alleges that the delay has deprived him of his right to a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice as guaranteed under Section 5(2) e of the Constitution. Pitman is also seeking an order to vacate the mandatory death sentence he received upon conviction for the triple murders. The legal action follows a letter written in October by Dana Seetahal SC, who represented Pitman at his appeal, seeking answers on the outstanding judgment.
The Chief Justice responded saying that he proposed to deliver the judgment before the end of the year. In an eight-page pre-action protocol letter sent to the Solicitor General’s office yesterday, Pittman’s attorney, Criston J Williams, said there was no justification for the delay. He claimed that the Judiciary’s handling of Pitman’s case demonstrated a “wanton and deliberate disregard” for his rights.
“The claimant in this case has had to suffer and continues to suffer breaches of his fundamental rights at the hands of the institution that is vested under the Constitution with the responsibility of the protection of those said rights. Such a situation can only be a rare event, at least one would hope so.” Williams wrote. Williams claimed there was “blatant evidence” in Pitman’s case which amounted to “a breakdown of the rule of law and the fundamental pillars of our democracy.”
In response to the letter, Judiciary Court Protocol and Information manager Jones P Madeira yesterday said: “In this particular matter, the court has promised judgment by the end of the year.” Madeira refused to comment further but noted: “It is difficult to comment on this matter as the Judiciary will have to arbitrate over it and it is also a part of the matter.”
Legal sources yesterday explained that the lawsuit may be purely academic once the judgment was delivered as promised but said some of the reliefs being sought by Pitman may have some merit. Through the lawsuit, Pitman is seeking declaratory relief and damages but also said he believed it may be a stimulus for the Appeal Court to deliver its judgment.
“No relief granted by the court could repair the damage to our democracy that has resulted as a result of the failure by the judicature in the case of the claimant,” Williams wrote in his letter. Williams noted that his client’s appeal was not “frivolous or vexatious” and he did not resort to time wasting tactics to create a further delay.
“In the present case, the delay in the conclusion of the appellant’s appellate process has been due entirely to the actions of the Court of Appeal in failing to deliver judgment in a timely manner, a delay that is continuing up to today,” Williams said. In the letter, while refering to several decided Privy Council cases, Williams said the judgment in his client’s case should have been delivered within 12 months of the hearing of his appeal.
As a secondary issue in the intended motion, Pitman is seeking a declaration that his continued detention on death row since his conviction breached his constitutional rights. He is also seeking an order quashing his death sentence and a declaration that an attempt to carry out his execution would be considered “inhumane and degrading punishment.” Pitman’s attorney is also suggesting that his client be detained at the state’s pleasure.