Parsons fails in judicial review over murder conviction

The High Court has dismissed a judicial review brought by Lorne Parsons challenging the Governor’s refusal to refer his murder conviction to the Court of Appeal, ruling that the Governor acted within his statutory powers.

In a judgment delivered by acting High Court Judge Akilah Anderson, the court upheld the July 27, 2023, decision of His Excellency the Governor to refuse Parsons’ petition under section 56 of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (Virgin Islands) Act.

Parsons was convicted of murder and two firearm offences in June 2006 and sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder count, along with two concurrent six-year terms for the firearms offences. His appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal in 2007 and his subsequent appeal against conviction was dismissed by the Privy Council in 2008.

The petition to the Governor, filed in February 2022, argued that Parsons’ trial was unfair because the jury was selected under section 27(b) of the former Jury Act. That provision was later declared unconstitutional in Tyson v R, after the Court of Appeal affirmed that the Crown’s unlimited right to stand by jurors infringed the accused’s right to a fair trial under the 2007 Constitution.

In his petition, Parsons asserted that the Crown stood down nine jurors at his trial and contended that his conviction was therefore “unsafe and unsatisfactory and must be quashed”.

The Governor refused the petition after reconsideration. In his final decision letter, he stated: “After a careful and deliberate reconsideration of the matter, I hereby advise that I have again come to the decision not to refer the matter to the Court of Appeal pursuant to section 56”.

He noted that “the right to a fair trial has always existed” but that the issue had not been raised before the High Court, Court of Appeal or Privy Council. He also cited “the need for finality and certainty in the administration of justice” and the approximately 14-year interval between the Privy Council’s decision and the petition.

In dismissing the judicial review, Anderson J held that the Governor’s discretion under section 56 was broad and that the court’s role was supervisory, not appellate. The judge found that it was not unlawful for the Governor to consider delay, absence of fresh evidence and the public interest. “In the round, I am not persuaded that there is any error in this approach … that demands this court’s intervention,” the judge stated.

The court therefore dismissed the application for judicial review and made no order as to costs.