Editorial | Chief Justice should expand on DNA remarks

More often than not, this newspaper agrees with Chief Justice Bryan Sykes’ observations on things to be done to enhance the quality of justice for all Jamaicans. He is usually on the right track.

Which is why we look forward to a fuller and clearer explanation from the chief justice of his remarks at last week’s dinner of the Montego Bay Chamber of Industry and Commerce regarding prosecutors’ wish to use DNA evidence in firearms cases. It seems that Justice Sykes fears that this will result in a return to a backlog of cases in the Gun Court. If our interpretation of what Justice Sykes said is correct, his greater concern is the immediate backlog, rather than the ultimate utility value of DNA evidence on quality of justice.

That would not only be surprising, but would remove the burden for efficient analysis and production of DNA data from where it properly belongs: a properly staffed and well-managed Institute of Forensic Science and Legal Medicine (IFSLM), the government agency that has responsibility for such matters. And that obligation falls squarely on the government. Indeed, it is what we understood Justice Sykes to imply when he granted bail to Michael Smith and Rajae Walker in their shooting case in October.

Since becoming head of the judiciary in 2018, Justice Sykes has made great strides in cutting the backlog in Jamaica’s courts, whose efficiency he expects to reach global standards by 2026. The parish courts have already met, and acceded to, their target of clearing cases within two years.

MIXED BAG

It is, however, a mixed bag in the various divisions of the Supreme Court. But, according to the chief justice, the “High Court Division of the Gun Court in Kingston (which hears the bulk of gun-related cases) is backlog-free for now”.

Added Justice Sykes: “And I say for now because that is being endangered, because, under the new DNA legislation, the prosecution is now asking for DNA analysis. So, whereas it used to be just simply the ballistic certificate, they are asking for ballistic analysis.”

This, he said, can be a time-consuming process, “because time for the forensic services begins when the case is assigned, not when it gets to the lab”.

There are also new complex approaches for dealing with some levels of gun crimes, which, under the new law, attract much harsher penalties than in the past.

This newspaper starts with the presumption that the use of DNA evidence in the justice court system is a good thing – once the method of extracting people’s DNA is sound, the chain of custody of the samples is reliable, and the science upon which the outcomes are based is trustworthy. When those things hold – given the accuracy of DNA in identifying individuals and its ability to place people in specific places and environments – it is good for the prosecution and the defence and, ultimately, for justice.

In the circumstance, it makes sense that prosecutors would wish to take the fullest advantage of the availability of DNA, especially if it helps to make their cases airtight. As ministers of justice, they would be expected to extend the same courtesies to the defence, even when DNA evidence may help to exonerate accused persons.

GREATER OBLIGATION

While judges have a responsibility, insofar as is possible, to prevent backlogs in their courts, their greater obligation is to justice – and its just delivery. Which also means that it should happen within a reasonable time and with due respect to the other constitutional rights and freedoms of the citizens.

With respect to the DNA evidence, the right of contenders in firearm cases to insist that it is adduced at hearings isn’t the problem. The agency that is empowered to conduct the science must be given the tools to do the job – which essentially was what Justice Sykes suggested when prosecutors and law enforcement officials harrumphed over his bail decision in the Smith/Walker matter.

In the aftermath of that decision, and the chief justice’s implicit criticism of the time it took to complete DNA analyses, the head of the IFSLM, Dr Judith Mowatt, complained that a chronic shortage of staff contributed to the problem. With 80 forensic officers across all departments, she said, the agency was 40 per cent understaffed. Most of the shortage was in the DNA department.

There are, perhaps, cases in which the absence of DNA evidence isn’t prejudicial to either party – prosecution or defence – and these matters should be allowed to proceed. But the most reliable evidence should be available to the courts. If that’s DNA, so be it. Having passed and promulgated the law, the government should ensure that it works, while upholding people’s constitutional rights.