The Tribune

By NICO SCAVELLA

Tribune Staff Reporter

nscavella@tribunemedia.net

ATTORNEY General Allyson Maynard-Gibson said yesterday that her office has not yet decided how it will proceed in handling the Court of Appeal’s recent overturning of the conviction and death sentence of Kofhe Goodman.

She was asked if her office would appeal the Court of Appeal’s ruling to the country’s highest court - the London-based Privy Council.

Mrs Maynard-Gibson also dismissed suggestions that the influence of local media - including social media - is not a legitimate reason to have trials reheard.

Her comments came a little under two weeks after the Court of Appeal ordered a retrial for Goodman, who was previously sentenced to death concerning the murder of Marco Archer, 11, of Brougham Street in 2011.

The court ultimately concluded that adverse pre-trial publicity, misconduct of Goodman’s defense lawyer and a jury irregularity were major grounds for Goodman’s case to be reheard in the Supreme Court.

Justices Jon Isaacs and Stella Crane-Scott both agreed that Goodman’s chances at a fair trial had been hampered by adverse coverage which included National Security Minister Dr Bernard Nottage’s announcement of “Marco’s Law” two weeks before the start of trial in April 2013, notwithstanding that the case had no evidence or charge concerning kidnappings or sexual assault.

Court of Appeal President Dame Anita Allen dissented from the opinion of her fellow justices, however, stating that the jury had the benefit of a “sound and thorough” warning on the potential impact of pre-trial publicity, a warning she said “we must assume the jury followed in their deliberations.”

A retrial was ordered for as soon as possible.

Goodman, however, had sought a deferment of a retrial if the court were to allow the appeal against his murder conviction and death sentence.

Nonetheless, shortly after the news broke of Goodman’s conviction and sentence being overturned, disgruntled Bahamians took to social media to vilify the judiciary, Goodman and his lawyer and questioned whether victims of crime could receive justice.

When asked if she felt it is primitive to dismiss cases because of the impact of local and social media, Mrs Maynard-Gibson, without references to the Court of Appeal’s ruling, said: “I think, of course, it always depends on the facts. I’m very, very grateful that we have such competent judges who are aware of the modern realities that you’re faced and are able to balance the interest of justice given the prevalence of social media and given the ease at which information travels from one place around the world, not just within our community.”

Last week, veteran lawyer Wayne Munroe, QC, called on critics of the court’s decision to read the entire judgment before their hasty actions and angry comments result in a permanent stay of a retrial.

Mr Munroe, the court appointed lawyer who successfully argued on Goodman’s behalf in the Court of Appeal, charged that whoever is retained by Goodman for the retrial can very well gather the prejudicial and non-factual comments that have been published and make a case as to why a retrial is not possible as has been done in otter jurisdictions, including the United States.

“If indeed we were ever to get to the point where execution is decided by a jury as I’ve recommended in the past, then we would and should want an accused person to have a fair, unprejudiced and robust trial so that if a conviction is reached and execution is decided, there would be no arguments that a fair trial did not occur,” Mr Munroe said at the time. “That’s what the whole process of right to a fair trial is about.

“The comments by those individuals show that they don’t understand and more importantly, a lot of their comments are factually incorrect,” he added.