Letter of the Day | Justice system needs reform for greater efficiency

THE EDITOR, Madam:

Jamaica is riddled with disputes, conflicts and grievances which often result in bloody and frightening outcomes. The use of the gun, knife and machete to settle disputes is well known.

A man was contacted by a lady to do construction work. Upon completion of the job, the workman went for payment. She found all kinds of reasons to discredit the tradesman’s work and ended up not paying him. The tradesman became very angry and went about searching for a machete in a neighbour’s yard, declaring that he is going to chop her up. Upon the intervention of the owner of the yard in which he searched for the machete, good sense prevailed and he calmed down.

The police were called and their intervention resulted in the man agreeing to take the matter to court, but he’s still angry and harbouring thoughts of foregoing the court system. He opined that justice is too bureaucratic, and the line into the courtroom is too cumbersome and exhaustive.

Another man accused of committing a sexual offence was arrested, charged and placed before the court, which he attended on numerous occasions. The complainant eventually told the court that the accused man didn’t commit the act against her.

The case was dismissed, but the accused man remains bitter and suffers from reputational damage. He feels like the justice system has violated him and it has no olive branch for him. This also speaks to other offences, where witnesses are found to be untruthful.

In the first instance, it would be prudent for the dispute resolution centres to be restructured so that the police can issue official documents to both to attend the centre for a hearing. Such hearing should be presided over by justices of the peace (JPs), with the requisite training to award costs for damages, where necessary. These JPs should be able to treat with costs up to $1 million. The court would still retain the authority to review matters dealt with by these centres. In addition, dispute resolution should form part of the adjudication of these matters.

In the second instance, where a witness or complainant clearly declares that he/she did not tell the truth, or the evidence is clear that the witness is untruthful, the court should assess damages, and compensate the aggrieved person(s). In addition, there should be prosecution costs paid to the State for resources utilised to prepare cases for court.

These are my humble suggestions that can form part of justice reform in our country.

BERTLAN REYNOLDS