Lawyers representing three of the 17 prisoners serving time for the 1983 murder of Grenada's Prime Minister Maurice Bishop and others said that government's Special Prosecutor, Hugh Wildman of Jamaica is making false claims following a Privy Council decision last week Thursday.

Wildman told reporters shortly after the ruling that he was vindicated since the Privy Council ruled on an argument he had propounded and was accused of attempting to prevent the release of the prisoners.

Wildman was commenting on a ruling by the Privy Council dismissing a request for Special Leave. In the ruling before a Board consisting of Lord Hope, Lord Browne and Lord Mance, a petition seeking the immediate release of three former soldiers, Cosmos Richardson, Andy Mitchell and Vincent Joseph contended that the sentence imposed by then high court judge, Denis Byron was illegal and contrary to the criminal procedural code of Grenada.

"What is significant about the ruling of the Privy Council today (Thursday) based on the reports I got from our Solicitors in England is the arguments that the Privy Council used to reject the petition, were the same arguments that I propounded on the television and media when the matter was current when I made the point that the judge was wrong and gave the wrong interpretation of the criminal code," Wildman said.

Keith Scotland

The Petitioners were represented by Edward Fitzgerald QC and Julian Knowles, and the Respondent by James Dingemans QC. However, defence attorney Keith Scotland of Trinidad and Tobago said that at no stage Wildman was involved in the case, making reference to Queen's Counsel Karl Hudson-Phillips who had been retained by the Keith Mitchell government in St. George's to represent the State.

"In matters of special leave her Majesty's Board never gives reasons for their decisions, so no reasons were given," Scotland said. According to the Trinidad attorney, the decision has to be viewed in the context that the 14 applicants have a substantive matter which is before the Privy Council as a matter of Leave already granted by the Court of Appeal and that matter will be heard later on this year.

Scotland was referring to the remaining prisoners whose initial death sentences were commuted to life in prison. "So it's a quantum leap and it is without logic to say that leave was refused for any arguments advanced by anyone in the substantive issue", he said.

"In relation to that issue the Privy Council has said that we can take no further action because they have refused us leave so that by necessity we will have to hold but I reiterate that the matter involving the 14 which is to be held later this year before her Majesty's Council that matter also encompasses the three," he added.

Scotland acknowledged that the Privy Council's decision is a setback to the revolutionary prisoners at Richmond Hill. "We have seen them and spoke to them. Although there must be some initial disappointment the struggle continues", he remarked..

In 2002, a local high court judge ruled that the three ex-soldiers should be freed because each received more than one consecutive 15-year sentence for manslaughter - an action it said amounted to multiple sentences for the same crime.

However, the OECS Court of Appeal overturned the decision. The latest ruling from the British Privy Council comes shortly after the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) set up to look into the events between 1976 to 1983 recommended that the 17 should be given a new trial.