Editorial | Sykes must clarify Gang Court call

Chief Justice Bryan Sykes needs to be clearer on what he wants, whether it is a new division of the Supreme Court, or merely a new type of facility where gang-related trials are held. The chief justice must also assure that what he has in mind won’t lower the bar for the conviction of people accused of gang membership, which we do not believe would be his intent.

For several months, Justice Sykes has been presiding over a complex, and sometimes seemingly meandering bench trial of 33 alleged gangsters – members of the so-called Clansman-One Don Gang, reportedly led by Andre ‘Blackman’ Bryant, who is one of the persons in the docks. This is largest of the gang trials since the 2014 anti-gang law, surpassing the 2020 case of the Uchence Wilson Gang, in which 24 people were initially before the courts. That, too, was presided over by the chief justice.

Justice Sykes’ frustrations with the pace of the current trial, and apparently with some of the administrative arrangements relating to it, spilled into the open last week when the prosecutor did not have transcripts of some of the phone recordings between the reputed gang members, made by a supposed backsliding colleague who is now one of the prosecution’s key witnesses.

The judge lamented that the trial, involving more than 40 defence lawyers, was spread over two courtrooms; consumed much of the system’s resources; was into its second term, without any clear indication when it would end; and that it had slowed the conduct of jury trials.

“This underscores the point I’ve been making for the last two years, that these types of cases must take place in a purpose-built facility,” Justice Sykes said.

BUILD A PLACE OR RECONFIGURE

That remark, on the face of it, is very clear. There would have to be built place, or an existing space reconfigured, that is capable of accommodating large numbers of defendants and lawyers, and having the security features required in these types of trials. It would also need to have the technologies for taking evidence from remote sites, as has happened in this matter.

However, that was not the extent of the chief justice’s intervention. He also said: “So this is telling me that going forward, this cannot happen again; two terms and two courtrooms. It cannot happen again. We will either have to bring legislation or something to deal with these kinds of cases, because ordinary proceedings can’t deal with them.”

Justice Sykes claimed that he has been making these points “for the last two years”, but that “the authorities refuse to budge on this”.

These arguments must have been made in private. Although, frankly, there is no absolute clarity on what the case is, especially when the chief justice’s reference to a new legislative arrangement is taken into account.

Obviously, a special-purpose court facility for gang trials is easy to do, if the space is identified and the Government commits the money. It would start with a formal request from the chief justice, via the Court Management Services, to Delroy Chuck, the justice minister. Such a facility would make sense if there are sufficient trials to utilise the venue. With the police claim of hundreds of gangs operating in Jamaica, that ought to be possible once the constabulary improved its capacity to infiltrate these groups and establish cases against their members.

And, as was confirmed by the Privy Council in its 1977 decision in the Moses Hinds case questioning the constitutionality of the Gun Court, Parliament could establish a Gang Court as an extension of the Supreme Court, once it does not derogate from the constitutional protections enjoyed by the existing court.

However, Justice Sykes’ call “to bring legislation or something” seemed to imply something more than merely having a specialised court whose judges would develop the expertise to handle the complexities of gang cases. It seems to encompass changes to the ways such cases are managed, as a way to improve efficiency in the system. Which this newspaper would support, once it does not mean a diminution of people‘s rights and the undermining of justice.

In that regard, having fired a salvo from the bench, Justice Sykes should now release his full and detailed proposals for discussion by the public.