Privy Council shouldn’t be Jamaica’s final court
THE EDITOR, Madam:
Because I nearly always (mostly) share the same viewpoints as your editorials, it pleases me to see a situation where The Gleaner editorial ‘Lord Reed’s facts and context’ has agreed with my expressed views
I, like the views expressed in your editorial, oppose England’s Privy Council being our final Jamaican court, and the onus and focus of my commentary can be similarly summed up, as you have put it, as “something deeper: the delivery of justice that was contextually and empathetically closer to the people who received it”.
There are two reasons for this:
– I ascribe responsibility for our high murder rate to England’s Privy Council’s 1993 Pratt and Morgan ruling, and
– Why, after draining our resources for its own benefit and enrichment, they have no right to be telling us, an impoverished former colony, how to prioritise the few dollars that we have.
I believe that both accord 100 per cent with the opinion of Lord Hoffman and your editorial’s own summary, which says “But the far more profound case for the CCJ is Lord Hoffman’s argument that people are better served when courts interpreting their fundamental rights are closer to them. For these are not abstract issues”
LLOYD VERMONT SR