Focus on addressing our legal shortcomings

THE EDITOR, Madam:

I am writing with reference to The Gleaner editorial of August 5, titled ‘Tavares-Finson’s flaccid case’. Issue was taken with Mr Tavares-Finson’s support for the retention of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) as our final appellate court. His view comes from a quote attributed to him following the ruling of the board of the JCPC in the case of Adidja Palmer and others.

The editorial suggests that as a minister of justice and president of the Senate, Mr Tavares-Finson’s use of the outcome of the Adidja Palmer case, without more, to support his stance fell way below the bar in the absence of any reasoned analysis by him. Consequently, the argument was posited that he had implicitly sought to thrash the quality of the jurisprudence in local courts. While Mr Tavares-Finson is more than capable of defending his own view and of which incidentally I do not support, it is important to note, like any other lawyer who practises regularly in our local courts, he is entitled to his own view. However, his view and others would no doubt be informed by his own perception of his experience in the courts. Equally so is the perception of other counsel who hold an opposing view. That he is the president of the senate is immaterial. His view is qua counsel.

EDITORIAL FELL SHORT

The editorial fell short of what a reader would expect in the way of accuracy. To say that the JCPC did not decide whether Adidja Palmer and his co-appellants were guilty of the crime, but dealt primarily with ‘procedural justice’, is a misnomer. The consideration for any appellate court is always about the issues of law or ‘procedural justice’. The decision of guilt or innocence is determined at a trial. The advancement of arguments for the retention or removal of the JCPC should never be overtaken by statements which are not grounded in facts.

Respectfully, the better view of what is to be expected and to be demanded of Mr Tavares-Finson as the president of the Senate and indeed that of his colleagues, is an immediate amendment to the Jury Act to mirror that which obtains in England and Wales by virtue of Section 46(3) of the Criminal Justice Act of 2003. This legislation provides for the continuance of a trial by a judge alone where there is clear evidence of jury tampering that is likely to result in a miscarriage of justice. Our focus must be on addressing our own shortcomings, lest there be additional voices insisting on retaining the JCPC as our final appellate court in this our 62nd year of our Independence from Britain.

PETER CHAMPAGNIE

Attorney-at-Law