Public Defender Arlene Harrison Henry on December 9, 2015 sent an explosive report to parliament, the result of an investigation into several incidents, including the blood-stained Coral Gardens affair, for which she has recommended reparations and apology by the Jamaican State to Rastafarians. The Jamaica Observer presents part four of an edited version of the report:
“
The image of the Rasta, as the average Jamaican sees him, is that of ‘a dirty, unkept no-good’ whose sole desire is to cause civil strife. No attempt is made to understand his point of view. In fact, he is not entitled to one. He is therefore castigated by all and sundry, and is the convenient scapegoat for all the crimes and acts of violence committed in the country. The Rasta is hunted down at every turn, he is therefore always on the run. The scales of justice have been heavily weighed against him, it is as if the world of Jamaica, were against him.”
As a result of the passage of time and the substantial loss of court records for the relevant period, Jamaica will perhaps never know exactly how many Rastafari, including all the Rastafari families, were victimised during the tragic events of Coral Gardens and the bloody aftermath.
If within one week of the events in Coral Gardens over 160 Rastafari were arrested, and the operation against Rastafari continued for several weeks, then one could reasonably estimate that many more were rounded up and imprisoned. In addition, many hundreds of Rastafari opted to cut their locks and shave off their beards rather than face the oppressive consequences which would otherwise have befallen them.
Those persons are also victims of the Coral Gardens incident, having been forced by unlawful threats, fear and intimidation, to cut their locks and shave their beards against their free will. Many of them, however, remain unknown or forgotten, having died some time ago, or no longer remembered as a result of the tide of history.
This report recognises those Rastafarians who suffered discrimination and suppression and who were not involved and who in no way participated in any of the unlawful activities relating to the Coral Gardens events of 1963.
Trial for murder of cop
Clifton Larman, Carlton Bowen and Leabert Jarrett were tried and convicted in the St James Circuit Court for the murder of Corporal Clifford Melbourne. Seven witnesses testified on behalf of the Crown, only one of whom purported to identify Mr Jarrett.
Their appeal against conviction was heard by the Court of Appeal, over the period 11th March to 21st May 1964. The judges who heard the appeals were Justices of Appeal Duffus (the president); Lewis and Henriques. The appeals of Messrs Larman and Bowen were dismissed, while the appeal of Mr Jarrett was allowed, and accordingly he was acquitted.
The Court of Appeal referred to the Messrs Larman, Bowen and Jarrett as members of the “Rastafarian cult”. In the judgment of the Court of Appeal, there appears a passage which reads:
“The three appellants were jointly charged on an indictment for the murder of Clifford Melbourne, on April 11, 1963. Melbourne was a detective corporal of police stationed at Montego Bay and was one of a police party of about fourteen men who were searching for about five men believed to be members of the Rastafarian cult, who early in the morning of April 11, 1963, had burnt down a gas station at Coral Gardens and hacked to death a man named Marsh who was staying at the Edge Water Inn Motel close to the gas station.”
Amendments to the ganja law
Anti-ganja laws came about in Jamaica from as far back as July 1913. The International Opium Convention ratified at The Hague on the 23rd January 1912, was then incorporated into domestic law. It is by this means that the importation and growing/cultivation of ganja became criminal offences. On conviction the punishment for importation and growing/cultivation was a fine up to L100 or a period of imprisonment not exceeding 12 months.
Several amendments were introduced after 1913. With each amendment came an increase in severity of the penalties, or a creation of new offences. Thus, the 1941 amendment,
Act No 24 – 1941, for example, introduced mandatory imprisonment; while the 1942 amendment,
Act No 22 – 1942, criminalised the possession, use and dealing of several other substances and their derivatives, which up to then, were not included in the existing law. It also introduced other offences specifically relating to the “
possession of any pipes or other utensils for use in connection with the smoking…of ganja”. This amendment created an elaborate regime for the lawful exporting/importing of ganja; thereby rendering illegal, any act or conduct falling outside this regime.
By the 1961 amendment, the penalty for possession, or smoking of ganja, was
mandatory imprisonment. However, the court had a discretion to impose a term not exceeding 12 months, along with a possibility of a fine of L100 fine.
For cultivating, selling or otherwise dealing, the mandatory term of imprisonment was increased to five years, and subject to the imposition of a fine of unlimited sum. Such was the state of anti-ganja law in Jamaica in April 1963 at the time of the Coral Gardens tragedy. By then the legislation had been formally termed the Dangerous Drugs Law.
The increase in severity of penalties in the ganja laws over time was the State’s response to social upheavals and disaffection in the society. The Coral Gardens incident provided yet another opportunity for further amendment to the Dangerous Drugs Law.
Within seven months of the Coral Gardens incident, a Bill entitled “
An Act to Amend the Dangerous Drugs Act” was introduced in the House of Representatives by the then Minister of Health, Dr Herbert Eldemire. On the second reading of the Bill, Dr Eldemire’s opening remarks are recorded in Hansard as:
“T
his Bill is designed to do three things, mainly (1) making it an offence for owners or occupiers of premises to use or permit to be used their premises for the cultivation of ganja; (b) (sic) increasing the penalties for the possession of ganja and for the cultivation, selling or otherwise dealing in ganja; and (c)(sic) providing for the seizure and forfeiture of vehicles used in the commission of any offence against the Principal Law.”
As the minister developed his submission to Parliament, he is reported to have said: “I think there is absolutely no doubt about it that ganja is a harmful and dangerous drug; and I would like to quote. It says here from the University of the West Indies – they did a series of experiments not only on the human being but on animals. And it is very interesting that they gave the ganja to some cats and dogs: and it is very interesting…when they gave the ganja to the cats there was a marked change in attitude of the animals. In the cats for example they lost all sense of fear and attacked dogs.”
L
aughter erupted in the House of Representatives. The minister assured the sitting Members of the seriousness of the matter regarding drug use, particularly by teenagers, and then continued: “You know, Sir, it is accepted by all the authorities that I have been able to read that the danger in ganja is its immediate effects, which induce violent psychosis and violent reaction: and these are its immediate effect. We are not talking about long-term effects; the long term effects create in a person, indolence, laziness; and you can well see the social repercussions of this.”
Ganja no more dangerous than alcohol, tobacco — Manley
The parliamentary Opposition (PNP) was not opposed to the increase in the severity of penalties, but strenuously opposed the sentence of a mandatory nature that would exclude judicial discretion upon conviction. The then Leader of the Opposition, the Rt Hon Mr Norman Manley, in his submission said:
“
It is my submission that in principle all Bills and all Measures providing for mandatory sentences are immediately to be subjected to the severest scrutiny to see whether there is any public harm or public concern that could justify such a Measure.”
“
And where you are going to deal with a drug like ganja and make it mandatory to send a person to prison for no less than five years for cultivating ganja, without any regard whatever to the circumstances under which it is grown, then I think the country has a right to be told what is the extreme danger involved in this particular thing which warrants so severe a penalty.”
“
It is quite obvious that tobacco is a dangerous drug. But before one considers making it a criminal offence to smoke or to grow tobacco, you would have to come with a very, very powerful case indeed.”
“
Mr Speaker, let us look at something which more nearly resembles ganja in its effects, namely alcohol. I listened to all the Minister had to say about ganja and what we know medically about it. But for the life of me I found it difficult to be sure he was not talking about alcohol. Alcohol creates hallucinatory states. It creates mental disturbances of a grave order. It causes enormous euphoria, which only means to feel good to some people. That it causes some people to be violent in the extreme, is notorious. And the minister of health must know how much damage is done to a community by the indiscriminate or unwise use of alcohol.”
“…
the minister of health is telling us that he believes that ganja is so dangerous that he must make this extraordinary mandatory penalty.”
And Mr Florizel Glasspole a member on the Opposition side (who years later became Governor General of Jamaica) submitted: “
Mr Speaker, we are not suggesting for one moment that there should not be an increase in the penalties. I for one, am one who believes that many heinous crimes have been committed under the influence of ganja, though many persons disagree with me. But it cannot be right that mandatory punishment be meted out to a first offender.”
The Leader of the Opposition went on to describe the proposed amendments as “a monstrous outrage”.
In contrast, a member on the Government side (Mr Jackson), who naturally supported the proposed amendment, expressed himself this way: “
I believe that the minister should have put in the Bill that anybody convicted for the said offence should get the cat-o-nine tails.”
As the debate in Parliament continued, Government and Opposition members traded barbs, and each side ascribed to the other, political motives of various types. In some of the contributions to the debate there were references to previous incidents, in which the members opined that ganja was a causative factor. For example, the then Minister of Agriculture Mr Allen is recorded in Hansard as saying:
“
There are many persons in the grave today who would not have been there if somebody else had not smoked ganja and killed them. We have had the stories of Whoppy King. Do we want more Whoppy Kings? We have had reports of the dastardly act which was committed in Leicesterfield, a district in which I lived for many years. Nobody in Jamaica could say that he has not got good reason for believing that ganja puts people in a frame of mind for committing crimes.”
Another example is provided by a member on the Government side who supported the Bill; in a clear reference to the Coral Gardens incident, he said: “
Mr Speaker, look what happened recently in St James when officers of the Police Force lost their lives through the smoking of ganja by a gang of men.”
And a further example is found in the utterance of the then prime minister: In his rejection of a call by the Opposition for the setting up of a committee to enquire into the use of ganja and its effects, again in an obvious reference to Coral Gardens, said in Parliament:
“A
ll of us know the effect of ganja. There will be no enquiry, none whatever. Just ask the Police wives that have lost their husbands about the effect of ganja recently in another parish.”
According to Hansard the then prime minister said: “
Mr Speaker, I do not believe in a long debate, nor multiplicity of words. This Government will use every authority at its command to have ganja smoking, growing, trading stamped out.” (Government applause) “They can talk all they want; the Bill is going through as it is.”
With the Government having a majority in the House of Representatives, the Bill was passed. It was subsequently passed in the Senate, and eventually received Royal Assent on the 2nd March 1964. It was
Act No. 10 – 1964, and it came into force on the 5th March 1964.
By this amendment to the Dangerous Drugs Law, section 22 prescribed that:
“(2)
Any person who is guilty of the offence of cultivating or selling or otherwise dealing in ganja shall on a first conviction for such offence be imprisoned wit
h hard labour for a term not less than five years and not exceeding seven years and on a second or subsequent conviction for such an offence be imprisoned with hard labour for a term not less than seven years and not exceeding ten years.”
And — “(2A)
Every person who is guilty of the offence of being in possession of ganja shall on summary conviction before a resident magistrate, in the c
ase of a first conviction for such offence, be imprisoned with hard labour for a term not less than eighteen months and not exceeding three years and in a case of a second or subsequent convi
ction for such offence, be imprisoned with hard labour for a term not less than three years and not exceeding five years.”
Opposition member Florizel Glasspole was prophetic when, during his contribution to the debate, he argued that such a law would make criminals of the young people. He said: “
There should be no law that tends to make criminals of our people. And that is what I say on this Bill. It did not intend to but it will make criminals of them because you cannot correct a young fellow by sending him to prison for five years and he is mixed with hardened criminals who will make him more a criminal than he ever was before.”
And so it was, that under the 1964 amendment, hundreds of Jamaicans were mandatorily imprisoned for smoking and possession of ganja. The
Jamaica Law Reports for the period 1964 – 1972 are replete with examples.
It was the 1972
Law Reform (Mandatory Sentences) Act 1972, that abolished mandatory terms of imprisonment as sentences for breaches of specified laws, such as the Dangerous Drugs Law.