Do not condemn CCJ as hanging court

Do not condemn the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) because you feel it will be a “hanging court.” 

“As a matter of fact, whatever your views on the establishment of the court, do not think of yourself or your country, but of the wider community because in the long run, the CCJ will enhance the access to justice and give persons far greater protection under the law.” Those were the views of St Lucia Prime Minister, Dr Kenny Anthony, when he delivered the feature address in support of the CCJ at the first in a series of consultations on the CCJ held at the La Boucan, Hilton Trinidad. Anthony said the CCJ was an affirmation of a shared historical vision by Caribbean governments and it was vital to completing the independence of the region. He said Caricom governments felt strongly that the court would be a reflection of the needs and circumstances of the region and would enhance access to justice and provide far greater protection of the law. He said those against the court were saying it would deny justice to the poor man, but Anthony said the sheer issue of cost prevented many persons from taking their matters to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which the CCJ seeks to replace as the Caribbean’s final appellate court.

Anthony added that justice before the Privy Council was elitist as it was available only to those who have the means and property. He asserted that the CCJ was not a creature of political expediency and was a shared dream over the years, from as early as 1901. He said it was difficult to see how some argued that the court was a creature of politics when the court was in the hearts of Caribbean people for a long time. He insisted that it was incorrect to suggest that the court was inconsistent with globalisation, saying instead that it would challenge the process of globalisation. Anthony predicted that with the CCJ, there would be a sharp increase in appellant matters because of the cheaper cost. Agreeing with that point was Sir Dennis Byron, Chief Justice of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court. He said statistics showed that in 1998, of the 65 cases entered before the Privy Council, 46 were from Caribbean countries. He said here in Trinidad at least 60,000 cases went before the magistrate courts, 12,000 reached the Civil court and 6,000 the criminal courts. A mere 3,000 reached the Appeal Court and according to Byron, if that amount is multiplied by Caricom members, it would suggest that litigants in the region are accepting Caribbean justice.

Anthony, expressing his personal view, said the most compelling argument for the court was that it would re-shape Caribbean jurisprudence. However, he cautioned that the British training of most of the Caribbean’s attorneys and judges would continue to impede the re-shaping of the jurisprudence. But he noted that the court will offer attorneys new exposure because many of them do not have the opportunity to appear before the Privy Council. On the question of whether the court was a “hanging court,” Anthony was firm that “the court does not hang people” but it was the will of Parliaments to keep the death penalty. He said the court merely followed the law and it was unfair to attack the court on that issue when the death penalty was guaranteed not by process but by legislation. He reiterated that the court had no power to abandon the law.  He said the death penalty was a relic of the colonial past and it seems that the anger of the court detractors was not on whether the CCJ was established but on whether the death penalty should be retained. Anthony said in that regard, it was disingenuous to undermine the integrity of the court. He reiterated that the CCJ was not about Jamaica or Trinidad and Tobago but about the region, and some countries would be required to make sacrifices. He warned if there was one shred of doubt, anxiety or unwillingness in TT or Jamaica, it would cast a shadow across the region and people needed to think of their responsibility to the region.