THE EDITOR, Sir:
ONLY THE passage of time will indicate whether the recent healthy, robust and varied public expressions of opinion concerning certain matters relating to justice will have an impact on the way justice is administered in this country - or is it just another nine-day wonder.
Public comment was triggered by an unusual sequence, and at times confluence, of apparently unconnected matters relating to justice. These included the ruling by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in the Michael Gayle case, the criticism by a prominent human rights advocate of the judge's summing-up in a case in which some policemen were acquitted of a charge of murder, the Chief Justice's proposal at a 'banquet' that trial by jury of certain cases should be discontinued, the remarks allegedly made by a judge of the Supreme Court at a 'dinner' about the immodest dress of some women, the view jurors took to this and the glorification of criminality by the media and the pièce de résistance; the Kraal murder case replete with more controversy 'than the law allows' in which several policemen charged with murder were also acquitted. There was also the rebuttal by Jamaicans for Justice of certain statements allegedly contained in a speech delivered by the Director of Public Prosecutions at another 'banquet' about the Michael Gayle case.
Having regard to the criticisms made by the public, the following are some of the matters which arise for consideration:
1. Judicial conduct and whether there is a need for a Code of Judicial Ethics and the scope of such a code.
2. Fair trial, accurate reportage, the right of a judge to exercise control over his/her court, the 'sub judice' rule, contempt of court.
3. The right of the public (including the media) to criticise the court or a judge and the scope of any such right.
4. The duties of a judge when summing-up to a jury in a criminal case and how he/she should deal with questions of fact in the summation.
5. The jury system, the preservation of its integrity and whether the types of criminal cases now triable with a jury should be restricted.
6. The status and duties of the Director of Public
Prosecutions as a 'minister of justice', whether a review of his constitutional position is needed, whether the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions is at present performing satisfactorily and, if it is not, what measures are needed to correct this.
7. The duty of counsel for the defence to
(i) the accused
(ii) the court
(iii) the court vis-à-vis the accused.
No allegation of impropriety is being made. I commend the above list to the Government, the Opposition, the Bench, the Bar, the general citizenry and the media for consideration and attention.
I am, etc.,
BERESFORD HAY
Kingston 8
