EDITORIAL - Use of cameras and accessibility to courts

It's not beyond Jamaicans to accommodate two or more ideas at the same time. So, notwithstanding the cautiousness and scepticism of the Opposition's Mark Golding, this newspaper endorses Justice Minister Delroy Chuck's suggestion that television cameras be allowed in Jamaica's courts.

Indeed, the courts are an integral part of Jamaica's system of government, and fair and accessible justice is a crucial plank of democracy. When it works, it is a bulwark against the arbitrary action of those who wield power, either in their private capacities or as representatives of the State.

It is a fact that justice is not always accessible, or easily so, to many, especially the poor and/or unsophisticated, in the Jamaican society, thereby adding to the imperfections of our democracy. For, as Mr Golding, the shadow justice minister, reminded this newspaper, Jamaica's courts are littered with delays and inefficiencies.

Unwieldy and convoluted

It is widely known, for instance, that there is a backlog of more than 400,000 cases in the island's courts, without any obvious path to clearing them and preventing the pile from growing bigger.

"... Often, there is lot of injustice because of that delay," said Mr Golding.

But delays, as we noted, are not the only hindrance to justice in Jamaica. The mystique of the system, with its convoluted administration and the rituals with which they are conducted, adds to the sense among ordinary Jamaicans that it is of a higher station than themselves.

Cameras in courts, we feel, can help to demystify the system, making it more accessible and transparent, which, if seen to be fair, will enhance confidence in the judicial process. In that sense, modern technology merely advances what was intended when the courts, except in very specific circumstances, were made open to the public.

Indeed, despite the inexpert handling of the commission of enquiry into the Christopher Coke extradition affair, the televising of the events not only engaged the public, but provided more citizens, than the hearing rooms would ever accommodate, real-time, nuanced appreciation of the issues at hand.

Fixing the system

Clearly, televising court proceedings is no substitute for greater efficiency in the courts and proceeding with cases at an acceptable pace. Nor can it obviate the need for dealing with the issue of insufficiency of jurors or fixing the detention facilities for prisoners.

But these things and making the justice system more socially inclusive are not mutually exclusive. Justice can't, in that sense, be compartmentalised. Nor should we assume that having cameras in the court would lead to a free-for-all, with all rules and procedures abandoned. The courts have well-developed rules for dealing with various kinds of cases, to which television cameramen, as do the handful of people who make it into courtrooms, have to adapt.

It must also not be felt that cameras in courts would be an expensive new cost to the struggling budget of the judicial system. Already, the Public Broadcasting Corporation of Jamaica televises the legislature. It is a small, and relatively inexpensive, step for it to add specified court sittings.