Bench backlash

A rebuke from Chief Justice Bryan Sykes to Supreme Court Justice David Batts for penning a letter published in The Gleaner has created ripples on the Bench, sparking debate on the scope of freedom of expression and the weight of the whip swung by Jamaica’s most senior court official.

Smarting from a perceived slight after Justice Batts ignored his caution, Justice Sykes described as “unfortunate” the June 23 letter to the editor sent by Justice Batts in response to a May 20 newspaper report about judicial salaries.

Justice Sykes acknowledged that much judicial conduct was not governed by “hard law” but by convention, hinting further that Justice Batts’ foray on to the pages of The Gleaner showed a lack of wisdom.

“Many judges may feel strongly about something, but it cannot be that judicial officers should feel that they can simply write a letter to the press should they take the view that is what is desirable,” the chief justice said in correspondence seen by The Gleaner.

Justice Batts had contradicted the suggestion that a recently announced increase in judicial salaries gave effect to a report by the Ninth Independent Commission enquiring into remuneration.

“The announced increase in salaries bears no relation to that which the commission recommended. This is not unusual and continues a pattern set by previous administrations in which the Government virtually ignores the recommendations of the commission established by statute to review and report on judicial salaries,” the Supreme Court judge wrote.

UNDESIRABLE PRECEDENT

It is unclear whether Justice Batts’ comments were viewed as treading on political territory, but his remarks earned the ire of Justice Sykes, who issued a missive that same day disputing Justice Batts’ interpretation and warning that publication of the correspondence contravened tradition and undermined his authority.

“It sets an undesirable precedent. It also demonstrates a lack of collegiality,” Sykes said in his comments to judges on the issue.

However, some judges have rejected Justice Sykes’ assertion, saying they saw nothing wrong with Justice Batts’ response.

It is understood that some judges intended to push back at Justice Sykes – a mini rebellion that could ruffle feathers among jurists known more for their stoic adherence to tradition and orthodoxy, even when they disagree.

“Judges cannot be muzzled by anyone and have a democratic right to speak out or make a correction as long as it is with the confines of the law,” one judge, requesting anonymity, remarked.

“We have independent minds and are guided by our oath at all times, so that should be a reminder to everyone,” another judge added.

Justice Sykes, in his correspondence, outlined that he had sought to discourage Justice Batts from submitting an opinion on a May 20, 2021 news report on a salary hike for judges, with retroactive effect from April 1, 2020.

Justice Batts, a former vice-chair of the near-dormant Independent Jamaican Council for Human Rights, has long been viewed as having an evangelical zeal for the constitutional right to freedoms of thought and expression.

The chief justice was miffed by what he described as Justice Batts’ lack of restraint.

“It is expected that if the chief justice indicates that a particular course of action is not desirable that regard would be had to that position.

“But clearly that was not the case here. It is also expected that judges would abide by the communication protocol,” Sykes said.

Urging judges to learn from what he called a “regrettable incident”, the chief justice said that Justice Batts’ defence that he was taking a personal position “does not detract from the fact that the chief justice expressly said that the proposed letter was not a good idea and yet the judge went ahead nonetheless”.

The chief justice fears that Justice Batts’ apparent decision to go rogue could set the template for chaos and indiscipline in the judiciary.

“So two weeks ago we had court reporters releasing to the press internal communication between themselves and the chief justice. Now we have a judge writing to the press after the chief justice indicated that this was not supported,” said Justice Sykes.

“Is it that we are now at the stage where the belief in our own rightness is so strong that no other view will dissuade any particular course of conduct?” the chief justice queried.

editorial@gleanerjm.com