The politics of justice

David Batts, Contributor

It is said that there are no votes in justice. Perhaps that explains why successive administrations of independent Jamaica have failed to adequately provide for our system of justice.

The courthouses across the island are woefully inadequate, and, in many instances, run-down. Human resource is expected to function in substandard conditions. Our Supreme Court judges have no dedicated personal assistants, most do not have their own offices, they do not have chauffeurs (the orderlies assigned serve only to escort them from the parking lot into court).

Our Supreme Court library depends heavily on donations as funding for new acquisitions is inadequate. Jamaica has no publicly funded system of law reporting, although up-to-date and accurate law reporting and indexing is a prerequisite for any common-law system of justice to function effectively. The backlogs, delays, and inefficiencies which, therefore, characterise justice in Jamaica should surprise no one.

Given this state of affairs, Jamaicans should be wary about any proposal advanced by politicians to replace the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council with a final appellate court right here in Jamaica.

court's reputation

A court gains its reputation by the consistency with which it administers justice according to law. The appointment of learned persons of integrity to a constitutionally protected judicial office will not suffice to ensure such justice. Adequate remuneration, reasonable working conditions, and the provision of the necessary books and other reading material are also prerequisites. Is there any reason to suppose that a new court created within Jamaica will enjoy such privileges?

A court needs also to develop its collective experience. Jamaica cannot hope to match the collective experience of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council which has hundreds of years of archival experience and whose judges - drawn as they are from the United Kingdom Supreme Court - preside over more cases and a wider array of legal subjects than do ours. Nor is a final appellate court in Jamaica likely to match the collective experience of a Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ).

In addition, therefore, to our resource constraints, there is a very practical reason why Jamaica should not have its final appellate court within its borders.

There are sound and compelling reasons for the abolition of appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. In the first place, that court is located in England, and the cost to retain counsel means the court is available only for the very wealthy, or those, like our death-row inmates, who receive pro bono assistance from English counsel. Furthermore, our cultural differences are vast, and it is, to my mind, inappropriate for an independent post-colonial nation to continue to rely on the erstwhile coloniser for its final appellate court.

These negatives do not apply to the CCJ. This court is the creation of the independent states of the Caribbean. Its judges are appointed by an independent commission. The court is not dependent for its existence on annual budgetary subventions from the member states and is, therefore, on a much more independent financial footing than the other great regional institution, the University of the West Indies.

There are desirable improvements to the treaty establishing the CCJ, and we should use this opportunity to lobby for those changes. The Jamaican Bar Association's recommendations for change are well documented.

embrace the CCJ

I submit, however, that Jamaica should embrace the CCJ and remove itself from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for the following reasons:

(a) The CCJ will be more accessible to Jamaicans than the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council;

(b) The collective experience of the judges of the CCJ will be greater than any court Jamaica will be able to create, given the condition of our economy and the quality of cases likely to come before it;

(c ) The CCJ has arrangements for funding which render it independent of annual budgetary governmental support;

(d) The CCJ has an appointment process for its judges which is independent, fair, and transparent;

(e) The CCJ is a court we can call our own, as it was created by the region for the region;

(f) Since its formation, the CCJ has delivered decisions of quality and it is fast developing an impressive array of judgments.

Jamaicans should, therefore, reject any suggestion for a final appellate court here in Jamaica. If the Privy Council is to be abolished, we should support adoption of the CCJ in its place.

David Batts is an attorney-at-law. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.