Tardiness in justice contributing to crime

(2) The “high” levels of living in some quarters which has had a “demonstration effect” on those who may feel dispossessed.

(3) Related to item (2) is the clearly observed “discrimination” in the distribution of income.

(4) The general lack of opportunities for the poor, relatively uneducated and dispossessed.

(5) Failure by the properly constituted authorities to stem the flow of illegal drugs into the country.

While all of these items may be indubitable, it is clear that we are failing to identify the “root cause” of the problem with which TT is faced.

I postulate that the “causes” identified above are but “spin-offs” and that the “fundamental” is the tardiness in the administration of criminal justice combined with failure to “attach” meaningful penalties thereto — a situation which, if not tackled at source, will continue to provide fodder on which criminal elements will feed knowing full well that, at the end of the day, they could either be freed at trial or even escape relatively unscathed.

At criminal courts, we have been witnessing trials lasting for as long as nine years and still not being completed. We must also appreciate that this is taking place at a time that this country is being “served” by a plethora of legal practitioners considerably larger than never before.

I therefore postulate that the major impediment to swift and assertive justice is to be found in the practices and procedures of our criminal justice system — practices and procedures which seem to encourage delays and filibustering in our courts. Are these related to the high fees and refreshers which our lawyers are being permitted to charge? The DPP has expressed his disappointment at the outcome of the recent Coolman trial, stating that his case was well presented.

It is also not surprising that the Chief Justice, perhaps out of frustration, has expressed the view that trial by jury (as we know it) ought to be abolished — a suggestion which has raised the ire of many senior lawyers to the extent that one senior practitioner has, regrettably, even reported to have mentioned the allusion of the possibility of bribery were trials by juries to be abolished.

Now let us examine briefly the matter of trial by jury.

Trial by jury is said to have had its origin in common law jurisdictions such as England and Wales and has found its way into former British colonies, in particular.

Its major features, which are to be found in the Magna Carta 1215 and Abolition of the Star Chamber 1641, respectively, were: (a) trial was to be by “respectable men of the neighbourhood” and (b) “no freeman can be imprisoned or deprived of his liberty except by lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.” Here, “peers” were responsible for finding the “facts” of a case while the judge determines the law.

It leads one to wonder as to the mechanisms in TT for selecting “peers” in a society where those most “qualified” to be jurors tend to find loopholes enabling them to avoid this civic duty.

Our citizens have been known to express surprise at the relative alacrity at which courts in the US have been tending to do their business notwithstanding the varying provisions in state and Federal constitutions. I suggest that we take a look at our neighbour to the North.

Furthermore, we could be enterprising by reviewing procedures in non-common law jurisdictions where, generally, courts comprise panels of “learned “ judges (numbering perhaps threefour) and lay people (also perhaps three-four), thus allowing a person prosecuted to be tried with an input by his/her “peers”. Let us be innovative.

ERROL OC CUPID Trincity, Tacarigua