Letter of the Day | Make mediation a justice-driven exercise
Published:Thursday | July 20, 2023 | 12:05 AM
THE EDITOR, Madam:
Mediation is a win-win for parties in litigation in both civil and criminal cases. It saves precious judicial time by ending litigation within hours rather than years, and often heals wounds, as at the end, the parties are better able to move on with their lives. The gains are so far-reaching that, in civil matters, mediation is mandatory. This extrajudicial oversight is highly recommended in domestic disputes, which have led to criminal charges disappearing, with no record remaining for one or both of the disputants.
Mediation is the poster child of the Ministry of Justice because of the cumulative effect of all I have said so far, and more. It is an ease on the budget, as it reduces our overworked administration of justice, which mirrors a good diet prescribed for a chronic case of obesity. In spite of all the gains outlined above, lawyers have a serious complaint regarding the approach of the attorney general (AG) to the idea of mediation. First, the attorney general is an arm of the State. Second, by law, all state servants who violate the rights of the citizen are not made parties to a civil suit, but rather, the attorney general steps in and becomes the named defendant in claims for redress.
The statistics in my law office, which no doubt closely resemble the national statistics, is that the attorney general settles only one per cent of matters at mediation. In fact, there is a 90 per cent success rate for our citizens’ matters which the AG refused to settle at the mediation stage that go on to trial years later. The question which looms large is this – why is a state agency failing to meaningfully participate in a state-promoted opportunity to save judicial time and administer justice in a timely manner? Is mediation, for the attorney general, a budget-driven exercise or is it justice-driven?
My colleague, who has had several matters with the AG, told me quite recently that in many instances, their approach is not demonstrative of good-faith efforts to settle the matter. They turn up at these mediation sessions, only to frustrate the very objective of the mediation process with absolutely no intention of settling the matter. The poor, wronged citizen has to fork out $25,000 to participate in a futile mediation hearing.
This is a call for the leader of the Bar, the honourable attorney general, to re-examine his department’s approach to mediation and let the public see his chambers as one working in the interest of justice, and assist in the speedy resolution of redress for the wronged Jamaican citizen.
BERT SAMUELS
Attorney-at-Law