Dear Editor,

Any attempt to abolish Preliminary Enquiry is unreasoned and ill-conceived and can only do injustice. The abolition does not take into consideration the following:

1. The statutory procedures for submitting cases to the Clerk of Courts to ensure that cases and case files are properly prepared are not followed;

2. The inexperience of Clerk of Courts who are occupying that chair merely because they are qualified as Attorneys-at-Law.

3. Motorists particularly operators of Public Passenger vehicles are being prosecuted for minor offences on the new policy of zero tolerance replacing the policy of warning notices in the first instance.

4. Traffic Officers being treated as revenue collectors some imposing fines far above what the courts would impose and so those fines are not paid causing warrants to be issued and further court proceedings.

5. There are not enough Resident Magistrates so that one can deal exclusively with trial matters and another with new, bail and mention matters and another or a Master to deal with chamber matters.

Preliminary Enquires continue in England and America. In England there is no Preliminary Enquiry only if the defendant or his lawyer agrees. Preliminary Enquiry is to make sure that unworthy matters do not reach the Circuit Court to cause further burden upon the Supreme Court since judges of the Circuit Court are the same ones who deal with both criminal and civil matters in the Supreme Court.

Owen S. Crosbie

Attorney-at-Law

Mandeville

Manchester

oss@cwjamaica.com