As the debate continues over the recently passed legislation to give Jamaican prosecutors a limited right to appeal court rulings, the Jamaica Observer has compiled the main arguments from both sides.

Arguments in support of the prosecution’s right to appeal:

(1) Strengthens the administration of justice by strengthening the powers of the prosecutorial services;

(2) Strengthens the judiciary because it provides another avenue for judicial scrutiny and accountability;

(3) It is a progressive step because it ensures that justice is afforded not only to an accused, but also victims and relatives of victims while still ensuring that the accused is treated fairly.

(4) In countries where the prosecution has the right to appeal, the right is exercised sparingly.

(5) The law provides that the prosecution will have to seek leave from the Court of Appeal which places an added hurdle that the prosecution must meet in order to succeed.

(6) The chief justice is on record supporting the prosecution’s right to appeal and advancing the argument that it will actually strengthen accountability as judges will have to give reasons for their rulings against the Crown.

Arguments in opposition of the prosecutions right to appeal:

(1) The floodgates — Giving this right to the prosecution will cause an exponential increase in the number of matters before the Court of Appeal.

(2) Challenges to the constitution — The right to appeal will erode constitutional guarantee and would infringe on the time-honoured principles of autrefois (a defendant’s plea stating that he or she has already been tried for and acquitted of the same offence).

(3) Delay — The right to appeal will further the delays which are endemic and prejudice the accused who most times have to wait upwards of five years for their matters to be tried. Cases will be long and drawn out; and

(4) Encroachment on the Judiciary/Judicial function — Might result in judges being more timid or fearful of their judgements being appealed.