OPPOSITION spokesman on finance Audley Shaw says he is dissatisfied with Prime Minister PJ Patterson’s response on whether Caricom Heads of Government had attempted to influence the Privy Council’s recent decision on Jamaica’s involvement in the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ).

“The Prime Minister’s response was confusing, conflicting and contradictory and he has not cleared up anything,” Shaw told the Observer Tuesday, after the debate in Parliament.

Shaw insists that there was an attempt by some Caricom leaders to influence the Privy Council.

The Observer understands that Shaw’s claim was triggered by allegations that at least two Caricom leaders had written the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC), which recently heard the appeal against the method chosen by government to join the CCJ, seeking to advance their position.

On Tuesday, during the question-and-answer period which followed Patterson’s statement on the court’s decision that the method chosen to establish the CCJ was unconstitutional, Shaw asked the prime minister:

“Is PM aware of any communication between the Heads of Government of the Caribbean in the form of written communication to the Privy Council, in the period following the submissions and prior to the decision handed down.”

Patterson responded:

“I am not so aware. Let me say very categorically, after the arguments were heard by the Privy Council, counsels appearing for both sides were invited to respond to a particular question that was put.”

“I wrote to my colleague heads of government advising them of what had transpired before the Privy Council. I raised, for their consideration, whether the implication of the ruling was not so expensive and likely to affect them as to warrant their considering whether they should formally apply to the Privy Council for leave to appear and intervene and argue the merit before them.

“With the passage of time, between that communication and when the written submissions were to be forthcoming, no such intervention, to my knowledge, was made and I certainly am not aware of any attempt by any person in political office, whether head of country or minister responsible, to have been in direct contact with the Privy Council.

“And I daresay, if any such thing had been attempted, it would not only have proven extremely counter-productive but would run virtually the certainty of such a person being called before the court on possible charges of contempt.”

Shaw said the Prime Minister’s response confirmed that he had brought to the attention of his fellow Heads of Government the possibility of their applying for leave to appear before the judicial committee and argue their positions.

Patterson had previously told the House that after arguments were heard by the Privy Council, the law lords had asked counsel appearing to present written opinions on what would be the correct procedure in the course of setting up the new court.

He added that submissions were made and they differed from those tendered on behalf of the appellant and those on behalf of the respondent.

He said that the Privy Council, although it asked for it, deliberately refused to make any ruling on the matter, “because they said it had not been considered in the courts below.”

– balfordh@jamaicaobserver.com