Caribbean Court of Justice... Necessity or luxury?

Once again the matter of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) has become a major news item. It seems that even though the CCJ has been firmly established since February 14, 2001 there are still some lingering doubts about its relevance and importance to Jamaica and other Caribbean nations.

It is worthy of note that at her swearing-in ceremony on January 5, Prime Minister Simpson Miller argued that the CCJ should be Jamaica’s final court of appeal. As such it would replace the judicial committee of the Privy Council, a reconstituted panel of judges from the British Supreme Court. 

This is against the background that it has been underused because Jamaica, Trinidad (where it based) and others haven’t officially adopted it. 

In fact, to date only Barbados, Belize and Guyana have replaced the Privy Council with the CCJ.

All of this begs the question: Is the Caribbean Court of Justice a necessity or a luxury? 

The following are some of the arguments, for the CCJ replacing the Privy Council as our final appellate court.

HAVE WE NO SHAME?

In recent years there have been subtle and tacit signals from some British officials that point to a desire on their part to be released from the added burden of addressing appeals which come from the Caribbean. 

Indeed, according to media reports, Lord Nicholas Phillips “called on Caribbean countries to establish their own final court of appeal and questioned whether some Privy Council cases, including Jamaica’s death row appeals, needed to be heard by a panel of five of Britain’s most senior judges, who have to spend disproportionate time on these matters” (The Gleaner, September 25, 2009)

In this regard, who can forget the “Have we no shame?” comment which was made by former Prime Minister P.J. Patterson years ago!

 The practice of making appeals to the Privy Council is inconsistent with the full attainment of political sovereignty and independence. In other words the practice, by its very nature, undermines the principles of political/national sovereignty and independence that we hold so dear.

With the Privy Council operating all the way from London, the far distance and the cultural differences between it and the Caribbean justify the establishment of a regional court of justice.

The practice of making appeals to the Privy Council is an inhibiting factor in the development of an indigenous Caribbean jurisprudence.

The practice of making appeals to the Privy Council militates against the development of the potential of our local judges.

The practice of making appeals to the Privy Council involves considerable expense in the pursuit of such appeals and hence raises the question of accessibility, at least to the common man in the street.

Appeals to the Privy Council have been abolished by most Commonwealth countries. In this regard it is argued that the Caribbean has been lagging far behind in terms of 21st century reality.

IF IT AIN’T BROKE!

The following are arguments against:

At present, there are relatively few calls among the peoples of the Caribbean for the establishment of a Caribbean Court of Justice. As noted Talk-Show-Host Wilmot Perkins has stated, “The cry of the Jamaican people is for local justice, not for the formation of a regional court of appeal.”

The decisions of the Privy Council have generally indicated a stronger inclination to recognize fundamental principles of justice than the judgements of the Caribbean court. 

In short, it is argued that the Privy Council has a very admirable method of justice and as they say in America, “If it ain’t broke don’t fix it!”

It costs absolutely nothing for Caribbean nations (not nationals) to continue making appeals to the Privy Council. Indeed, it is argued, the establishment and maintenance of a Caribbean Court of Justice will result in a cost to the nation that could be avoided if we remain with the Privy Council.

Interestingly, it is reported that the Government of Jamaica currently spends approximately US$3.07 million per annum to maintain this court. We are the biggest financial contributor to a court that was not chosen by the Jamaican people, it is argued!

Furthermore it is argued that that US$3.07 million a year that could be better spent “fixing our local courthouses, training more judges and providing greater access to justice”.

 A newspaper article alleges that The CCJ only recently appointed a Jamaican to sit on its Bench, a Jamaican who has never served in the judiciary in Jamaica or elsewhere (The Jamaica Gleaner, January 5, 2012). If that is true then obvious questions arise about the very composition of the CCJ. 

The so-called ‘distance factor’, which the Privy Council offers, is an asset in the pursuit of unbiased and just court decisions.

The practice of making appeals to the Privy Council is in keeping in line with the concept of Globalization. Indeed, it is argued, the world is best viewed as a ‘Global Village’.

What are your thoughts on the matter? Shalom