By Barbara Gayle, Staff ReporterTHE JAMAICAN Government on Tuesday expressed deep regret at the killing of Michael Gayle, in a statement which comes a week behind Jamaican for Justice's appeal to an international body that the Government be urged to apologise for the incident.
But Justice Minister A.J. Nicholson has also expressed surprise that the human rights lobby group had been using other means to ventilate issues that were subject to quasi-judicial consideration and settlement negotiations.
Michael Gayle, a mentally-ill man, was beaten to death by police and soldiers at a curfew barricade in Olympic Gardens, Kingston, in 1999.
Last year, Solicitor General Michael Hylton, Q.C., recommended that there should be an out-of-court settlement in the civil suit filed by Jennie Cameron, Gayle's mother, in the Supreme Court.
The JFJ took the Michael Gayle issue to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), which has agreed to hear the petition after a written submission from the group.
Last Saturday, the JFJ issued a statement saying that it was deeply disappointed that the Attorney-General had sought to avoid any responsibility for his Chambers' role in the JFJ decision to proceed to the IACHR for a hearing on the Michael Gayle matter.
SETTLEMENT
Senator Nicholson, who is also the Attorney-General, issued a statement Tuesday in response to the recent statement. "The Jamaican Govern-ment deeply regrets the killing of Michael Gayle. Any plausible interpretation of the facts leads to the conclusion that Michael Gayle died due to the actions of agents of the State.
"For this reason, the Government of Jamaica wishes to reach a settlement that will take fully into account the circumstances of Michael Gayle's death (as far as ascertainable), the sincere grief occasioned by his death and the culpability of the State agents responsible for his death," Mr. Nicholson said in the statement.
"I have personally acknowledged the wrong that has been perpetrated against Michael Gayle and his loved ones."
Mr. Nicholson said the JFJ noted that the Government did not appear at the hearing by the IACHR on March 2, but as a matter of general practice the Government did not participate in such hearings. He said it was not meant as disrespect or disregard of the IACHR or the JFJ, and should not be taken as such.
He said in keeping with the Government's desire to resolve the matter amicably, it had advised the IACHR of its interest in pursuing friendly settlement of the case.
A meeting was held between Government representatives and the JFJ and claims, some of which refer to issues concerning criminal prosecution, medical negligence, fraud and tampering with the official record, were referred to by the lawyer for the JFJ.
The Minister also said the Government believed that the pursuit of dual approaches a friendly settlement and adversarial proceedings by the JFJ was contrary to the spirit of friendly settlement negotiations.
"Among other things, the resort to adversarial proceedings may undermine the willingness of the parties to co-operate," he said.
