AG tries to unclog the courts

ATTORNEY GENERAL John Jeremie yesterday brought to the House of Representatives a Bill which he hopes will unclog the backlog of cases in the law courts. He piloted the Indictable Offences (Preliminary Inquiry) Bill. The AG said the Bill permits the  Director of  Public Prosecutions (DPP) to send a case to the High Court without having to refer to a judge, or to first have a preliminary inquiry by a magistrate. Jeremie  anticipated the Opposition might argue the measures violate the National Constitution. He said the British Privy Council, in the Jamaican cases of “Grant vs DPP” and “Brook vs DPP”, had ruled that a law that thus empowered the DPP did not need to be passed by a special majority of Parliament. The Privy Council, he said, had ruled: “This did not constitute a breach of natural justice.”

He also said the former UNC government had brought a similar Bill, which had lapsed, which they had passed with only a simple majority of Parliament, thereby proving that the current Bill does not violate the Constitution, nor needs a special majority. The Bill also allows a Magistrates Court to accept written evidence, rather than just the oral submissions of defendant and witnesses. This procedure is a called “paper committal” and is to be used at a preliminary inquiry where a magistrate decides whether or not there is enough evidence, on the face of it, for going ahead with a trial in the High Court. Paper committals had similarly been allowed under Act 20 of 1994, but this Act fell into disuse, said the AG because of certain unworkable provisions, which the current Bill now seeks to remedy.

Jeremie said that  the 1994 legislation had failed to cut delays, because it allowed a defendant to cross-examine the written evidence of a witness, and allowed the defendant also to give written statements. The AG said the Deyalsingh Report into the judicial system said accused persons use the 1994 Act to keep prolonging their cases. After the Magistrate Court goes through the whole procedure of collecting written evidence which is then cross-examined by the defendant’s lawyers, the accused then says he wants the witnesses to come to court to give oral statements. But under the new Bill, said Jeremie, once a defendant accepts the written statements of evidence from the prosecution, the defendant cannot then object to a paper committal.

Reports by Justice Deyalsingh, Lord McKay of Clashfern, and the then-DPP had all called for the retention but reform of the system of paper committals, said Jeremie. The AG said that the current system of paper committals had been abused in some cases to stretch out court cases for years. He said proceedings in the Piarco Airport Terminal case had been stretched out for three years using this device. He added: “There are proceedings afoot in relation to one of my colleagues in this Chamber, and those proceedings have been afoot for quite some time.” Alluding to UNC leader Basdeo Panday, but not calling his name, Jeremie said: “People run out of prisons where they have temporarily placed themselves because they realise they have serious business before the courts.” 

He said it was unfair for an accused to be the beneficiary of the largesse of the prosecution. The AG remarked that the new Bill would not apply retrospectively to existing court cases, quipping: “That will be a source of comfort to some in this House. It won’t apply to a preliminary inquiry that began before the amending act comes into force.” Jeremie said the Bill allows a court case to be recorded digitally, thereby cutting down the time taken by long-hand writing, an initiative that will require the amendment of the Recording of Proceedings Act 1991. In conclusion Jeremie said the Bill by itself would not solve all the delays in the judicial system. Reform was also needed in the serving of a warrant, bail, and the Summary Offences Act. He said the Government was aware of the required changes in administration and infrastructure to administer justice, and pledged better facilities for the magistracy.