Judicial humility
Published:Wednesday | January 7, 2026 | 12:07 AM
THE EDITOR, Madam:
The president of the court of appeal, The Honourable Marva McDonald Bishop, who handed down the acquittal decision in the Vybz Kartel murder case on July 24, 2024, gave a very good summary on Monday, January 5, 2026 of what she considered to be the virtue of “judicial humility”.
I was touched by what was, for me, a refresher course in the makings of a good judge. Madam President, in mentoring the newly appointed judges at King’s House, concluded that judicial humility helps to build public trust.
The speech by the president caused me to return to August 21, 2025, to a speech made by our chief justice, where, in criticising the outcome of the acquittal of four appellants (the Shawn Campbell and others murder case ), in a reasoned judgment by the president –one of which was my client – the chief had this to say:
“… because of our inefficiency, a man who should really be sitting down behind bars is now free as a bird entertaining countless millions of persons … .”
It was Madam President who delivered the judgment of acquittal for the “man “ referred to by the chief justice. She ruled that, to order a retrial for him would be in breach of his constitutional rights to a fair trial within a reasonable time.
The chief justice’s comments have ,in my humble opinion, the following unfortunate implications:
1) It is an affront to the decision of a Court, superior to where he sits, that is the Court of Appeal, who in a reasoned judgment relied on seven reasons why its decision was made, and who consequently issued a certificate of acquittal and ordered “no retrial” for the Adidja Palmer, aka Kartel “the man” he says should be sitting behind bars.
2) It confronts in a vulgar way the principle that an acquittal by a superior court should be respected, and no comment regarding the guilt or otherwise of the appellants ought to be made by any judicial officer, let alone our chief justice.
3) It places the acquitted men at the risk of being the victims of jungle justice, as it sends an unfortunate signal that the acquitted men were guilty and should have been in prison at this time.
4) Without a stretch of our imagination, it also discredits the hard work of the lawyers who represented the men, and who secured an acquittal, in addition to the personal risk of reprisals they are exposed to by the mourning relatives and friends of the deceased.
Unfortunately, stating publicly that the man should be behind bars qualifies as what we know as”bar talk” in Jamaica and is, respectfully, a comment unbefitting of any judicial officer.
But I do hope in closing , as the president said at the swearing-in of the new judges, the lesson learnt from this misstep is that humility means judges should acknowledge that “ they are not infallible and that listening to different perspectives can strengthen the justice system”.
I agree with her with nothing further to add.
BERT SAMUELS
Attorney-at-law