THE EDITOR, Sir:
THE PRIVY Council has ruled that the Jamaican Parliament may abolish appeals to it in the exercise of parliamentary sovereignty. This has been hailed as a "major blow to those who oppose the Caribbean Court of Justice". But while we ritualistically do the head count as to who lost and who won this round, the fundamental question remains what does this mean for the majority of the Jamaican people?
I remain firmly of the view that it is normally wrong and against fundamental basic legal principle for persons who wish to protect their fundamental human rights or their substantial economic interest to be denied access to the final court of appeal; whether it be the Caribbean Court of Justice, the Privy Council or whether it is called by any other name.
This is what was done by Section 14 of the Gun Court Act. It legislated that decisions made under this law by which persons may be sent to jail for life cannot be appealed against to the highest court. This is also what was done by Section 22A of the Court of Appeal Act which the Privy Council has just ruled on. Most alarming this is what is further proposed under the Caribbean Court of Justice legislation. Under the proposed law instead of expanding the citizens' right of appeal it is to be more restricted than it now is.
Under the existing law you could appeal to the Privy Council as of right if the property which forms the subject of your appeal is valued at $1,000 or more. Under the proposed law you cannot appeal to the Caribbean Court of Justice unless the property is valued at over J$600,000 (or $25,000 Eastern Caribbean Dollars).
Under the present law in relation to criminal matters (so long as the case does not fall under the Firearms Act or the Extradition Act) the local Court of Appeal has the power to give leave to appeal to the Privy Council if the case involves a point of exceptional public importance. Under the new law that power is to be taken from the Court of Appeal. This means that fewer people would have a right of access to 'our' Caribbean Court.
Sure, the Caribbean Court of Justice legislation is in one sense a laudable expression of sovereignty and independence from a government which was elected by the people, and which is of the people; but the question remains would it be a court for enough of the people? To make it more so I urge amendments to the proposed legislation and to the Firearms Act and the Extradition law which would increase the right of access to our final court instead of reducing it.
I am, etc.,
JACQUELINE SAMUELS-BROWN
Attorney-at-law
Kingston
