THE EDITOR, Sir:
AS ONE who has practised in the various courts of this country for nigh on 39 years, I wish to express my support for the proposed plea bargaining legislation. However, I have to share the concerns stated by Jacqueline Samuels-Brown in her article carried in a recent edition of your newspaper.
It is unquestioned that the increased workload of our criminal courts, with cases which go through to a full trial, is the principal cause of the tremendous backlog being experienced; and it is equally undisputable that whenever a trial is avoided by the entry of a guilty plea, the process is considerably shortened. However, this truism has long been recognised - so what is new about plea bargaining?
It is a process by which accused persons are encouraged to extract leniency from a court by providing information against others who may have committed the crime with which they are charged or any other criminal offence known to them. On the face of it - all seemingly justifiable, but, only if the plea bargainer is telling the truth. Bearing in mind that the plea bargainer is a self-confessed criminal, possessed of the relevant mindset - the temptation to lie to save his own skin is overpowering.
Cases have been reported in the U.S. where it has been subsequently discovered that a completely innocent man was so 'fingered'. I would, therefore, respectfully make the following recommendation to our law-makers - proceed with the proposed legislation, by all means, BUT have the plea bargainer sentenced BEFORE the offence which he purports to reveal has been tried and then and only then can that information, if found reliable, be conveyed to the Parole Board for favourable consideration, thereby ensuring that the inducement to lie is minimised.
I am, etc.,
HOWARD HAMILTON Q.C.
Harbour Street, Kingston
