G. Communication No. 272/1988, Alrick Thomas v. Jamaica (views adopted on 31 March 1992, at the forty-fourth session) Submitted byi Alrick Thomas (represented by counsel) Alleged victim; The author State party: Jamaica Date of communication; 12 January 1988 Date of decision on admissibility: 24 July 1989 The Human Rights Committee, established under article 28 of the international Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Meeting on 31 March 1992, Having concluded its consideration of communication No. 272/1988, submitted to the Human Eights Committee by Mr. Alrick Thomas under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Having taken into account all written information made available to it by the author of the communication and by the State party. Adopts its views under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol. Facts as submitted by the author 1# The author of the communication is Alrick Thomas, a Jamaican citizen currently imprisoned in the Kingston General Penitentiary. He claims to be a victim of a violation by Jamaica of his human rights. He is represented by counsel. 2.1 The author, an ex-constable of the Manchester Police Force, states that he was arrested on 25 October 1984 a/ and on 29 October 1984 he was charged with the murder of Leroy Virtue. The author claims that the deceased was shot incidentally, in the course of a brief melee outside a bar, after a man who had been in the company of the deceased had resisted the author's attempt to arrest him. 2.2 For the duration of the preliminary investigation, the author was granted bail, which was subsequently extended until the beginning of the trial on 27 January 1985, On that day, the author was still without legal representation because of lack of financial means. The Court was so informed and the trial judge instructed the clerk of the Court to ask Mr. Alonzo Manning, a legal aid lawyer, to attend court on 29 January 1985. The author first met Mr. Manning in the courtroom on the day of the hearing. The Judge granted counsel permission to consult with his client in private. The author claims that he explained his case to him, but that counsel did not take any notes. When the hearing resumed on the same day, counsel allegedly did not present all the facts to the judge and the jury. Furthermore, he did not challenge the jury, although "in-laws" and close acquaintances of the deceased allegedly were among the jury members. Thus, the author argues, the jury was biased against him. -253-