THE EDITOR, Sir:THE RECENT 'not guilty' verdicts in two separate trials involving policemen have caused persons from all walks of life not only to comment and give their views, but in some instances to launch an attack on the judicial system of our land. Most, if not all of the comments, have come so far from persons who have either not sat to hear one word of the evidence in any of these cases, or from persons who were interested not in seeing that justice was done, but in seeing that the policemen were convicted.
In the trial of any criminal case, it is the evidence that is given in court that the jury has to consider, and not the statements given to the police. As one of the jurors in one of these cases has stated, the evidence adduced in that case was far from satisfactory, and they were not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt. That statement makes the prior attack on the judge by Jamaicans For Justice not only unfortunate, but totally unwarranted.
In an adversarial legal system as ours, a judgement or a decision of the court usually finds favour with one side more than the other, and it is not unusual for persons after a trial to show their disgust at a decision. Where, as here, a group of persons such as the Jamaicans For Justice disagree with a verdict, they should be careful that their comments do not tarnish the reputations of persons whose ability, integrity, and commitment to the justice system are beyond question. In none of these comments is any mention made of the skill of defence counsel at the trial or their research, as one should not forget that their role in a trial is as important as any.
STRIVE TO REMEDY DEFICIENCIES
We all have our views on the justice system, but our discussion should be rational leaving out personalities. It is an undeniable fact that there are deficiencies in our justice system as there are in all other parts of the world, but we should strive to remedy them and at the same time encourage persons who witness the commission of crimes not only to give statements to the police but also to attend court and give the evidence at the trial. We need to give them more protection not only when they come to court, but after the trial if the necessity arises. The police need to be more professional in how they handle information. They need to regain the confidence of the general public.
The Jury System has served us well and if there is a need to improve it, let the debate begin. This debate should be devoid of partisan politics and should involve not only members of the legal profession but civil society as well. We can begin with making the facility for jurors at courthouses more comfortable, and remove them from the members of the public who mill around courthouses from time to time.
We can also seek to improve the speed with which their expenses are paid, and to encourage employers not to break the law by aiding and abetting their employees not to give jury service. Yes a lot more things need to be done to modernise our judicial processes so that cases can be heard more speedily and the back log reduced. Yes, we need to have more judges both at the Supreme and Appellate Court levels. Yes, we have a long way to go before we can be totally satisfied, but let the debate begin before we throw out the baby with the bath water.
I am, etc.,
GLEN CRUICKSHANK
Attorney-at-law
