Law Lord supports CCJ

Privy Councillor Lord Hoffman thinks the establishment of a Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) is a step in the right direction for TT, but cautioned about the selection of judges.

Speaking at the local Law Association Annual Dinner on Friday night, Lord Hoffman said that the CCJ is necessary if TT is going to have the full benefits of what a final court can do to maintain democratic values in partnership with the other two branches of Government — the Executive and the Legislative. He said that both TT and England are engaged in the process of establishing a new court of final appeal and that this might be a good time to consider whether the new court will be able to discharge its function better than the old. England intends to replace the House of Lords with a supreme court while TT and some other Caricom states want to replace the Privy Council with a CCJ. Recalling the debate that is going on about the CCJ, Lord Hoffman said that some of the arguments seem to undervalue the importance of a final court. The final court does not merely provide technical and legal services which can be contracted out, but an integral part in the way it serves governments.

Lord Hoffman said that it is an extraordinary  fact that for nearly nine years as a member of the Judicial Committee of the  Privy Council for TT, with its own culture and national values, that this was the first time he had set foot on the island. He said: “The Privy Council has done its best, I think,  to serve the Caribbean, and has done a lot to improve the administration of justice in parallel with improvements that are taking place in the UK.” He said he thinks that  members of the PC are being handicapped because they are not from this community. He added: “We are being necessarily cautious in doing anything which might be seen as inappropriate in local tradition. This caution may occasionally save us from doing the wrong thing. I am sure that it also inhibits us from doing the right thing. The liberty of a final court of appeal to fashion as a third branch of Government depends not only on its legitimacy but upon the sensitivity of its members to what is necessary and what is possible.” He suggested that such a court must be aware of the society — have the necessary knowledge, legitimacy  and sensitivity to the politics. He said that he was not  underestimating  the difficulty of creating a final court, but thinks that these Caribbean states which have so much in common  with its history and values should be able to do so.  He promised:  “We in London will do what we can to help.”

He said TT must be congratulated for its historic decision to be part of the CCJ which will complete its independence, but cautioned  that it will be a great  responsibility to those who choose judges,  and upon the judges themselves in the discharge of their constitutional duty. He said it was also a great opportunity for TT and other countries which share their culture and values to play a vital role in maintaining  the kind of democracy in which they wish  to live. He said: “It is our duty to protect the rights of our citizens against the powers of the legislatures and the executive.” “Liberty is a good thing but if you allow too much liberty the strong will oppress the weak and there will be no equality.  Equality is a good thing but you can’t have perfect equality. Compromises will have to be made. There are no perfect answers. Decisions on how to reconcile statements of human rights with the right of other people and with the practical needs of governments  are the regular business of a court  of final appeal in a democracy. These decisions cannot be made on abstract philosophical grounds.They must reflect the practical needs and values of the society which the court serve. The final court of appeal which interprets human rights in a particular society should be a part of that society. The Court is the third branch of Government  and it must have the same democratic legitimacy as the other two branches.” Lord Hoffman, told the large gathering of lawyers at the Hilton Hotel, that to maintain human rights costs money, and people  tend to think that the State should do other things with its money such as providing housing, hospitals and fighting crime, instead of ensuring that convicted prisoners are not kept in degrading cells and are treated like human beings.