Letter of the Day | Caribbean justice - delayed and denied

THE EDITOR, Madam:

The wires have been singing lately about the appointments of well-regarded Caribbean jurists to international bodies. They, like Bob Marley, often see minimal regard at home for their solid intellectual talents. Sometimes, connections or provenance brings some lawyers off the substitute bench, while others disappear into the lower courts, never to leave. Yeoman service is not enough.

Jamaican Winston Anderson was recently appointed to be president of the Caribbean Court of Justice in a surprising move, given Jamaica’s lacklustre performance in moving towards a republic and greater participation in CARICOM. In Barbados, Mia Mottley’s home town is awash in qualified jurists and she is the Caribbean leader, if there ever was one.

Not to be outdone, Grand Court Judge Richard Williams of the Cayman Islands was just appointed to be president of the Commonwealth Magistrates and Judges Association. There can be no better and more rounded judge.

Marva McDonald-Bishop of Jamaica also joined this elite company and became president of the Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Tribunal.

Unlike the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, these appointments are substantive in their own right and not with the unfortunate condition of only by invitation to citizens of the British Overseas Territories.

Not unlike the case of the poor, sick, old woman from Monserrat who was refused service by the British government ­­– without a peep from the colonial Caribbean leadership – (there is) no invitation at no time.

FAILED POLITICAL OVERSIGHT

So it is incontrovertible that the Caribbean has been producing lawyers of international calibre, with some exceptions. But why is the administration of justice in such a mess of delayed hearings, trials, disposition of cases, and a multitude of cases that carry over every year?

Why are so many disputes being settled in the street, or stemming from adverse conditions among the poor and ill-cared youth?

Why is there no peer review of judges, perhaps by an evaluation of their performance on appeal?

The answer lies with those hired to maintain the most important system of a civil society. This is not to bring administration into disrepute, but to analyse performance by empirical data or peer review, (and) to pursue constructive and modern change. This has not been forthcoming in the molasses that is the status quo.

More annual ceremonies with horse hair, but not enough ideas or fulfilling change.

The answer has to come from the failed political oversight of administrators, repeating the same formula and obsolete thought on punishment as well as rehabilitation.

PETER POLACK

Attorney-at-law

polack@candw.ky