Ninjaman lawyers say eight-year trial delay made conviction unfair

Lawyers for convicted murderer Desmond “Ninjaman” Valentine told Jamaica’s Court of Appeal on Wednesday that his case should never have gone to trial, arguing that more than eight years of delay before the hearing robbed him of key defence witnesses and made the proceedings unfair.

Attorney Robert Fletcher, who represents Valentine, said the lengthy wait created presumptive prejudice because people who could have helped the defence died before they could give evidence. He told the appellate bench that the lost testimony left Valentine unable to put forward his case properly, and that jury directions could not repair the harm. Presumptive prejudice, he said, arises from the delay itself and does not require separate proof. The defence also contended that the trial judge wrongly refused a stay for abuse of process, leaving Valentine without a fair trial under the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms 2011.

Fellow counsel Russell Stewart attacked the safety of the conviction, saying the judge failed to deal adequately with identification evidence. Although the Crown called several witnesses, he submitted that only two — a man and a woman — were critical. The male witness said he had known Ninjaman for about 17 years and saw him in the community several times a week, yet admitted he had never spoken to him. Stewart argued that frequent sightings without meaningful contact did not give the jury a safe basis to treat the evidence as recognition. He also pointed to conflicting accounts: the man said three men approached the deceased’s home with blunt objects and tried to get through the gate, that the deceased threw stones, and that Ninjaman then arrived and fired two shots toward the witness; the woman said she was indoors, heard what sounded like a gunshot, and later saw Ninjaman and another accused vaulting a six-foot gate with guns. Those contradictions, Stewart said, needed a fuller judicial direction. He also challenged the sentence, saying sentencing principles were not properly applied.

King’s Counsel Peter Champagnie, for Janiel Valentine, Desmond Valentine’s son, called the voice and visual identification against his client “woefully inadequate,” noting the main witness had only two or three seconds to observe Janiel allegedly jumping a gate with a firearm while her attention was split between father and son. He cited gaps between her trial evidence and earlier statements, including a claim that she saw Ninjaman through a side window that had not been disclosed before. Attorney Samoy Campbell, also for Janiel, argued the judge misdirected the jury on joint enterprise by treating foresight as an alternative to intention, contrary to R v Jogee; that no witness named who fired the fatal shot; and that the evidence did not show shared murderous intent. She also attacked the sentence, citing no prior convictions, a favourable social inquiry report, time in custody, and trial delay.

Attorney Zara Lewis, for Dennis Clayton, urged the court to quash his conviction, saying the Crown failed to prove he shared the intent required for murder and that even a properly directed jury could not have found he meant to encourage the principal to shoot. She said Clayton was linked to earlier stone- and weapon-related confrontations but there was no proof he knew a firearm would be used or joined any plan to kill Ricardo Johnson. She also criticised common-design directions that mixed intention and foresight, and raised alleged non-disclosure that a key witness had been placed in witness protection.

Desmond Valentine, Janiel Valentine and Clayton were sentenced to life imprisonment in 2017 after conviction for the 2009 murder of Kingston resident Ricardo Johnson and shooting with intent. Prosecutors alleged a domestic dispute on Lower Mall Road in St. Andrew led the men to return the next day with guns and other weapons and open fire. The appeal is before Justices David Fraser, Lorna Shelly-Williams and Marcia Dunbar-Green. Stewart was due to finish his submissions on Thursday.

Separately, the Rural Agricultural Development Authority says social media claims that backyard gardeners need a RADA farmer identification card are false. People growing food for personal, household or recreational use need not register or obtain a farmer ID. Registration is aimed mainly at commercial producers and helps RADA track production data and plan food-security programmes. The agency said it still encourages households to grow food, citing benefits for household security, health, the environment and resilience to rising food costs.