Barbara Gayle, Staff Reporter
THERE HAVE been mixed reactions in legal circles to a report that there are plans to amend the Constitution to increase the retirement age for judges of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court.
The retirement age would be lifted from age 70 to 75 years.
A Gleaner source said yesterday that "drafting instructions have been given for the act to be amended."
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
The Constitution was amended in 1990, increasing the retirement age for judges from 65 to 70. However, judges who get full pay on retirement can retire from office before they reach 70.
Newly-appointed President of the Court of Appeal Justice Paul Harrison and Chief Justice Lensley Wolfe, who are both 68, could remain longer in office if they wish, if the amendment is passed in Parliament.
Attorney-at-law Delroy Chuck is in favour of the amendment but says it must only apply to Court of Appeal judges because of the intellect and experience of judges at that level. He said the age limit had forced some of the better judges to retire.
"My position is that retirement at age 75 should only apply to the Court of Appeal judges whose work is not as strenuous as the Supreme Court judges in trial cases," Mr. Chuck said.
OTHERS AWAITING PROMOTION
However, attorney-at-law Lloyd McFarlane is not in favour of the proposed amendment. He said many competent persons were anxiously awaiting to be promoted to the bench. He said such an amendment would only serve to create more frustration for those persons.
Supreme Court judges have to take copious notes in court and some of them told The Gleaner yesterday they did not plan to remain on the bench until retirement.
A Supreme Court Judge said yesterday that he believed that age 70 was a reasonable one for judges to retire. He said, however, that he was certain that many of the nation's judges would not go beyond 70 because the job was strenuous. He said he had pains in his fingers from taking verbatim notes, especially at criminal trials, most of which last for more than a week.
The judge said there were talks a few years ago that notes of evidence would be available at the end of each day but so far that has not materialised.
