Cayman Precedent Cited in New Privy Council Appeal
Barry Randall
Last year's successful appeal
to the Privy Council in London by former local resident Barry
Randall, was recently referred to in another Privy Council ruling,
this time in a British Virgin Islands (BVI) case on appeal from
the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal involving, amongst other
things, allegations of prosecutorial misconduct.
In Randall v The Queen (2002), the Privy Council found that there were such departures from good practice in Cayman's Grand Court as to deny Randall the substance of a fair trial. Their Lordships drew attention to the fact that the duty of prosecuting counsel is not to obtain a conviction at all costs but to act as minister of justice.
However, in this BVI case, prosecuting counsel conducted himself as no minister of justice should conduct himself. Furthermore, according to the report published in the UK based, Sweet & Maxwell's Lawtel, in the trial, the judge failed to exert the authority vested in him to control the proceedings and enforce proper standards of behaviour, allowing his antipathy to both Randall and his counsel to manifest.
In the recent BVI case (R v Alexander Benedetto: R v William Labrador [2003]) it was also found by the Privy Council, using the Randall case as a benchmark, that the behaviour of the prosecuting counsel was wholly at variance with the way he should have behaved as a minister of justice.
When contacted to comment on this recent development, Mr. Randall said that he was pleased that his continuing efforts to pursue his complaints about the serious shortcomings in the justice system of the Cayman Islands seem to have had the added benefit of helping to put right other miscarriages of justice elsewhere.
Asked about his present status in regard to his Cayman Islands immigration standing, Mr. Randall declined to comment, saying that he could not do so without first speaking to his attorney in connection with a report that his Caymanian Status was unlawfully revoked and has still not been reinstated despite the quashing of his convictions by the Privy Council.
He however confirmed that he has received correspondence stating that further action is pending in relation to this particular matter and others flowing from his successful appeal to the Privy Council.