Recommended Free Tools
Vybz Kartel was freed in the Clive “Lizard” Williams murder case after Jamaica’s Court of Appeal declined to order a new trial on 31 July 2024 and entered judgments and verdicts of acquittal for him and his three co-appellants. The ruling followed a separate March 2024 decision by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which quashed their convictions because of jury misconduct but left the retrial question to Jamaica’s court.
What happened in the case
Adidja Palmer, the dancehall artist known as Vybz Kartel, was convicted alongside Shawn Campbell (Shawn Storm), Kahira Jones and Andre St John (Mad Suss) on 13 March 2014 for the murder of Clive Williams. The alleged murder was the subject of the case; the body was not recovered, according to the Jamaica Court of Appeal’s account.
| # | Preview | Product | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
|
Dancehall Hero Raw Deluxe | $24.99 | Buy on Amazon |
| 2 |
|
King Of The Dancehall | $23.38 | Buy on Amazon |
| 3 |
|
Kingston Story (Deluxe Edition) By Vybz Kartel (2012-08-13) | $82.05 | Buy on Amazon |
| 4 |
|
Up 2 Di Time by Kartel, Vybz (2004) Audio CD | $89.48 | Buy on Amazon |
| 5 |
|
Party | $24.99 | Buy on Amazon |
The four men appealed their convictions in Jamaica and then before the Privy Council. On 14 March 2024, the Privy Council quashed the convictions and sent the question of a retrial back to Jamaica’s Court of Appeal. After hearing arguments over six days in June, the Jamaican court delivered its unanimous decision on 31 July 2024. Read the Jamaica Court of Appeal judgment.
Why the Privy Council quashed the convictions
The Privy Council found that the trial judge’s response to a third incident of jury misconduct created a material irregularity and a miscarriage of justice. Rather than relying only on the forewoman’s account, the judge should have investigated the incident more fully. The implicated juror was allowed to remain on the jury, undermining the safety of the convictions and the appellants’ right to a fair hearing before an independent and impartial court under section 16 of Jamaica’s Constitution.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
#1 Best Overall
The Court of Appeal’s summary also notes that the prosecution’s willingness to waive irregularities did not remove the judge’s duty to ensure a fair trial. The Privy Council’s decision addressed the fairness of the trial; it did not itself acquit the men or rule out another trial. Its judgment is available here.
Why Jamaica’s Court of Appeal refused a retrial
The Court of Appeal weighed 12 considerations, including the seriousness of the alleged offence, the strength of the prosecution case, whether witnesses and exhibits remained available, delay, trial scheduling and costs, the impact on the appellants, publicity, possible prosecution advantage, changes to sentencing law, parole consequences and constitutional rights.
Rank #2
Factors that supported another trial
The judges regarded the alleged offence as serious and noted that the prosecution’s case, although substantially circumstantial, had been sufficient at the original trial to establish a prima facie case. The judgment did not declare that the original evidence was false or insufficient. The court also characterized the alleged conduct as a deliberate attack on law and order; that language described the case, not a new finding of guilt.
Factors that weighed against another trial
The court found that the prosecution had not adequately accounted for the availability of its witnesses and exhibits. Defence witnesses and trial exhibits used to support the defence were also unavailable or unaccounted for. A retrial would have to proceed without important material from the first trial, raising concerns about fairness.
The original trial lasted 64 days and consumed substantial court and appellant resources. The court considered the delay and the likely wait for a new trial, as well as the psychological, financial and medical effects on appellants who had already spent about 13 years in custody. It considered medical evidence concerning Palmer and estimated that a new trial would take place at least 15 years after the alleged offence. These were case-specific considerations in the court’s balancing of the retrial question.
Having assessed the factors together, the judges concluded that the interests of justice did not require another trial. They therefore entered judgments and verdicts of acquittal for the four appellants in this case.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What “freed” means—and what it does not mean
There were two distinct appellate decisions: the Privy Council quashed the convictions on fair-trial grounds in March 2024; Jamaica’s Court of Appeal then decided in July that a retrial should not be ordered and entered acquittals. The final result in this case was an acquittal, but the reasoning was that another trial would not serve the interests of justice—not a judicial determination that the original allegations were false. The ruling concerns these four appellants and this murder case; it does not, by itself, resolve unrelated legal matters.
Quick Recap
Best Value
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
