By Barbara Gayle, Staff ReporterTHE FARQUHARSON Institute of Public Affairs (FIPA) lost its legal battle yesterday, to get declarations from the Constitutional Court that the Evidence (Amendment) Act was unconstitutional because it provided for written statements to be tendered in evidence and denied an accused person the right to cross-examine witnesses.
The court also turned down an application from Frank Phipps, Q.C., chairman of the FIPA, to amend the motion to bring an application for redress for five aggrieved persons. Mr. Phipps said yesterday that he would be appealing the rulings.
Kent Pantry, Q.C., Director of Public Prosecutions, had argued that the FIPA did not have any legal authority to seek redress on behalf of any aggrieved party, because Section 25 of the Constitution stated specifically that only persons affected should bring the motion.
The FIPA was challenging the constitutionality of section 31 (D) of the Evidence Amendment Act and seeking redress for aggrieved parties.
APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT
After Mr. Pantry made the submission, Mr. Phipps applied to the court to have the motion amended under Rule 21 sub rule (1) of the Civil Procedure Code 2000, which he said made provision for the motion to be amended to allow any person to be the representative of five or more persons.
In turning down the application, the court held that Mr. Phipps had submitted that he had five persons who had interest in the proceedings. The court said after reading the affidavits there was no indication that anyone else other than the claimant had interest in the matter. The court ruled that the Code was not applicable and refused to grant the application.
The court then handed down its unanimous decision, dismissing the motion and said it will give its written reasons at a later date. The FIPA was seeking an order that the Evidence (Amendment) Act was in breach of Section 20 of the Constitution, which gives the right to accused persons to examine all witnesses. It was challenging the Act and also seeking redress for persons convicted under the Act.
The Act, which was amended in 1995, paved the way for paper trials, in that that the statements of dead witnesses or witnesses who cannot be found are admitted in evidence at trials.
RIGHTS OF CITIZENS
Respondents to the suit were the Attorney-General and the Director of Public Prosecutions. It was the FIPA's contention that the amendment to the Act breaches Section 20 (6) (d) of the Constitution which states, in part, that every person charged with a criminal offence shall be afforded facilities to examine in person, or by his legal representative, the witnesses called by the prosecution.
The FIPA stated in the claim that it had interest in all matters concerning the rights of all citizens under the Constitution of Jamaica.
The Evidence (Amendment) Act makes provision for statements and depositions to be admitted in evidence when witnesses are dead, or cannot attend court for special reasons.
