Paulette Garricks - Jamaica

Background
In April this year, Paulette Garricks - a young British woman from Buckinghamshire – went on a holiday to Jamaica and Barbados. After checking in her suitcase at Kingston airport, going through customs and preparing to board the plane she was removed and questioned by police over the ownership of a second suitcase that had been checked-in in her name and found to contain a large quantity of drugs.

Paulette protested that she had only checked in one suitcase, not two, and that she had no knowledge of the second suitcase containing drugs. The employee from the airline (who originally checked Paulette onto the flight) immediately confirmed that Paulette had only checked in the one suitcase. However, they said that after she had left the check-in area a second, unidentified suitcase appeared on the scales without a visible owner. Rather than calling back Paulette to determine whether she owned the case, staff at the check-in counter simply assumed the suitcase to be hers and labelled it in Paulette’s name.

Despite the mistake being immediately acknowledged by the airport staff, Paulette agreed to make a statement to the police and stayed to assist them with their enquiries. However, she was then detained overnight in jail, had her hair cut off and was charged the following day with possession, intent and conspiracy to traffic drugs. She was then detained for a further three nights before being released on unconditional bail and allowed to return to the United Kingdom pending trial on 8 June 2009. Charges were also brought against the airport employee who had mistakenly checked-in the suitcase.

Concerns about the British Consulate and Jamaican authorities
Both during her detention and after her release, Paulette received little practical assistance from the British consulate in Jamaica. Worryingly, Paulette’s family were informed by the Consulate that the Jamaican Authorities has said it was her wish not to be contacted or to disclose any information to them about her case. This was, in fact, not the case and as a result Paulette’s family were prevented from assisting her in the immediate period following her arrest. Furthermore, none of the messages left by her family with the Jamaican prison had been passed on to Paulette and the Consulate compounded this feeling of isolation by failing to make any checks on Paulette during her time in detention from 27 April – 1 May 2009.

FTI’s involvement
After promptly making contact with Paulette’s Jamaican defence lawyers and liaising with them about the ways that we could be of most assistance, FTI formally and directly raised our concerns with the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) in Kingston.

In particular, FTI strongly urged the DPP to review the merits of Paulette’s ongoing prosecution and drop the charges against her. In our view, charges should never have been brought against Paulette given that there was clear and corroborated evidence proving that she had no knowledge or intent to commit any offence. Furthermore, FTI highlighted the fact that no evidence had been produced to support the charge and requested that the DPP disclose to FTI copies of any CCTV, witness or forensic evidence that the prosecution would seek to rely upon.

Outcome
After Paulette returned to Jamaica to attend the hearing held on 8 June 2009, the prosecution failed to produce any evidence in support of the charges against Paulette and expressed a reluctance to pursue the case any further. Accordingly, the Judge acquitted Paulette of all charges and dismissed the case against her. Paulette has since returned to the UK and is now seeking to take civil action against the airline and the Jamaican Authorities.

The decision to drop all charges is, of course, a great outcome for Paulette who had been threatened with the prospect of a significant prison term if convicted. This young woman has, however, been through an unnecessary and harrowing ordeal.

More broadly, this case highlights the need for airlines and airports to have clear policies and procedures in place to appropriately handle unidentified baggage. FTI have since made contact with other individuals who have had unidentified bags mistakenly attributed to them by airline staff and faced criminal charges and detention as a result.

The case also raises serious concerns about the effectiveness of British consular assistance provided to people detained in countries other than their own and the practical impact of miscommunication between the Consulate and detaining authorities. FTI is in the process of assisting Paulette to formally raise these concerns with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to ensure that lessons are learned and that similar errors are prevented from occurring in the future.

FTI hopes that Paulette’s civil claim will focus the minds of those responsible for her terrifying ordeal. We will continue to raise these broader issues with relevant airlines and urge them to take action to ensure that these types of miscarriage of justice do not occur again in the future.