Caribbean injustice – overreach and excess

THE EDITOR, Madam:

The chief justice of Jamaica was recently spanked by its Court of Appeal for inappropriate behaviour that led to a conviction for murder being quashed. This is not abnormal in and of itself as magistrates and high court judges can have their decisions reversed because of poor decisions on fact or the law. The problem is that there is no peer review of their appeal records if they are fit for purpose.

There are no sacred cows when lives are at stake. People first.

This is a recurring outcome for the beleaguered justice systems of the Caribbean between the rock of judicial or prosecutorial oversight and the hard place of allocation of necessary resources by respective governments. At least the United Kingdom has an inspectorate to oversee prosecutions. Why not us?

A former director of public prosecutions, now Grand Court judge, had a similar outcome recently in the Cayman Islandsm which saw a manslaughter conviction in respect of a former prison officer murder quashed due to judicial error. The appeal courts are the only peer review of judicial decisions that affect people – sometimes for a lifetime. Understanding and applying the law is paramount for the administration of justice. The judges who frequently fail on appeal should be reviewed because at the end of the day, they bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

No confidence in that judgement operation leads to disputes being settled in the street.

Incompetent behaviour in the courts by ignorance of the law is not an excuse but worse when the error is of evidence or fact.

The sitting chief justice of the Cayman Islands convicted and sentenced a man to 12 years’ imprisonment on the basis of non-existent evidence. He was saved by the appeal courts. To be fair, that same error was repeated by the prosecutor and defence lawyer in that case, but the ultimate responsibility lay with the trial judge. There has never been any review or compensation.

Against this background, it is unsurprising that the Cayman Islands holds the Commonwealth benchmark for prosecutorial excess and judicial inaction, which was held in the Privy Council case of Randall in which the present attorney general of the Cayman Islands represented the prosecution. The Privy Council said:

The decision re-emphasises that cumulative prosecutorial misconduct and judicial inaction will render a trial unsafe regardless of the apparent strength of the evidence though it does not establish new legal principles.

This 2002 decision should have been the end of judicial inaction and prosecutorial excess. It has not. It has also not stopped judicial excess, judicial incompetence, and judicial blindness for the not small but deciding matter of law or evidence.

The latest call by the unqualified and incompetent parts of the failing justice systems of the Caribbean has been the removal of juries and even appeals.

Would you put your life in the hands of these people with no oversight?

PETER POLACK