WE sense that like that 15th century saint, Sir Thomas More, the Reverend Al Miller is convinced that his first allegiance is to his conscience as opposed to the will of the State.

And if that’s true, it’s admirable.

It’s admirable because it takes a lot of courage to stand up for unpopular principles in the face of unrelenting public criticism, condemnation and ridicule.

Indeed, if the Reverend was speaking the truth about his intentions to circumvent the Jamaican system by delivering Mr Christopher ‘Dudus’ Coke to the United States Embassy last week; if he can convince the court that he was honestly acting in belief that the life of Mr Coke, who stands accused of drug-trafficking and gunrunning, was in mortal danger, it is thought by some that he may just get away with what looks to us like downright criminal folly.

The argument as we understand it is that Reverend Miller, who escorted Mr Coke’s siblings to the police a few weeks ago, refrained from following through on the trend in Mr Coke’s case, because the option was not open to him. It was either carry him to the United States Embassy or no deal. Faced with the choice of two ‘evils’ Reverend Miller chose what seemed to him to be the lesser, that is breaking the law by harbouring the fugitive Coke and obstructing the course of justice.

The problem with all of this is that while it may sound plausible in theory, the reality of the Reverend’s problem is that necessity has traditionally been viewed by the Court through extremely cautious lens, even in matters of life and death.

Were it otherwise, what would appear to be a platform of righteousness on which the Reverend Miller could legitimately expect to be exonerated, would ultimately realise its true potential as what was once described by Scottish Professor Kenneth Norrie as a ‘Trojan horse for anarchy’.

Indeed, even if we were to believe the reverend — whose reported defiance in the face of being charged is, according to Friday’s edition, grounded on notions of being right — where would the line between the authority of his righteous beliefs and that of the State’s be drawn?

Would it be alright for marauding gunmen to decide how, when and why to escort whomever to wherever they had a mind in the name of justice?

And if that could be alright, why stop there?

Why not just run the full course and dispense with everything called due process?

The answers to these rhetorical questions which have been staring us in the face for ages; which have become crystal clear since last year when Prime Minister Bruce Golding made the costly error of interfering with the US extradition request for Mr Coke on grounds — which like the Reverend Miller’s are yet to be vindicated in a court of law — are simple.

This is supposed to be a civilised democracy where it is understood that all men, regardless of class, race, social connections, and everything else we tend to pride ourselves on, are, at the end of the day, equal human beings, capable of universal virtues and vices.

We all are as capable of lying, stealing, murdering as we are of keeping our hands out of the public purse, being truthful and putting the public interest ahead of our own.

So given the reality that the devil himself knows not the intention of any man, we have to do the best with the rules and systems that are available to us.

Said rules and systems are by no means perfect, but they are what we have.

Their success depends upon the co-operation of all of us… Mr Coke, Prime Minister Golding and yes, the Reverend Al Miller too.