Editorial | Sykes should apologise from the Bench

It is encouraging that the judiciary accepts its culpability in the sorry episode of mentally ill Jamaicans being lost in the prison system, wants to atone for past failures, and intends to do better in the future. But its statement of atonement, which is an important starting point in such matters, did not go far enough and the symbolism of its delivery wasn’t substantial enough.

Recently, there has been much public attention on the late Noel Chambers, an 81-year-old man, emaciated and weak, who died in January this year after 40 years in jail. Mr Chambers was never convicted of a crime. He, at some point, became mentally ill – perhaps he was even before his arrest for murder – so was deemed unfit to plead. He was, therefore, remanded “at the pleasure of the court”.

Mr Chambers became ‘lost’ in the system, unremembered until his death, when circumstances thereof were brought to light in a report by the Independent Commission of Investigations (INDECOM), the agency that investigates allegations of abuse of the public by members of the security forces.

The shame of Noel Chambers’ case is made more acute by the 2006 law requiring the head of correctional services to submit a monthly report to the court on the status of each prisoner remanded at the court’s pleasure. If these reports are not filed, the prison boss may be called before a judge to explain, under oath, the reasons for the failure. Further, court registrars are obligated to maintain a registry of each such prisoner and apprise judges of their situations, based on the reports from the commissioner of correctional services.

Last week, the Court Administration Division (CAD), the administrative arm of the court system, issued a statement of apology to Mr Chambers’ “family, friends, community and, by extension, every Jamaican”.

It added: “It is clear that many institutions, including the courts, failed in their duty to safeguard the right of Mr Chambers to life, liberty, and a fair trial within a reasonable time before a properly constituted and impartial court. Mr Chambers was victimised several times. The failure to have him before the courts at regular intervals resulted in him being overlooked, which ended in his death. This is not to happen again.”

Having appreciation for Chief Justice Bryan Sykes’ vision for Jamaica’s justice system, we sense sincerity in the declaration. It would have been the chief justice who caused it to be made.

FELL SHORT

It, however, fell short on two important counts. One is that it was issued by what, for the public, is a little known and amorphous agency on behalf of a slightly less amorphous ‘judiciary’. Chief Justice Sykes was quoted as having established a task force to review the issues that contributed to Mr Chambers’ situation. There was an absence for first-person involvement by the chief justice.

The second related, and equally important, concern has to do with form. This profound matter relating, as the statement acknowledges, a significant failure, to which the judiciary was a party, to protect a constitutionally guaranteed right. The apology to Mr Chambers, his family, friends, community, and to Jamaica should have been made specifically by Chief Justice Sykes and delivered, in his own voice, from the Bench at the Supreme Court.

It is not too late for that to happen. For Mr Chambers isn’t the only victim of this failure. INDECOM says that there are 146 people in prisons remanded at the pleasure of the court, including 15 who have been there for at least 30 years. It has emerged that at least one man may have been in the system for half a century.

What is surprising is that these ‘lost’ prisoners, before now, appeared not to have stirred consciences. For, while individuals may not have been known, their collective story was no secret. Not infrequently, it popped up in the press as one or another was freed after agitation by human rights activists.

There are many things to be done, including changing cultures, to prevent other Noel Chambers from happening, but among the easiest is the court’s request for “an adequate records and information management system”. The Government should make this a matter of priority.