Touted over these many years as Jamaica’s foremost constitutional lawyer, Dr Lloyd Barnett can be allowed one bit of misunderstanding, though woeful, in his views on this newspaper’s stance on the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ).

To be very clear, we have never questioned the “intellectual process and jurisprudential qualities of Caribbean lawyers” or the “competence of the judges of the CCJ”, a claim intimated by the learned Dr Barnett in his letter published in our Friday, April 8, 2022 edition.

It is noteworthy and disappointing to us that none of those who have commented on our position has been willing to respond credibly to the central concern we consistently raise — the broken system of justice in our region and its vulnerability to interference by connected parties, especially politicians.

We have also tried to represent the utter lack of confidence of the people in the justice system that has resulted in — using the case of Jamaica — more and more people taking the law into their own hands and demonstrating a stubborn reluctance to cooperate with the system, starting with the police.

The evidence we supply is not of our own making and something every school child can see for himself or herself. Check the frightening numbers of weapons, mainly knives and ice picks, that students are taking to school to protect themselves.

Everyone knows that the following is true: witnesses are intimidated at will; court files routinely disappear; evidence is frequently contaminated or compromised; cases are sabotaged by corrupt officers; and there is a never-ending backlog of cases, thus denying swift justice and frustrating victims.

We stand by our view that “Most treacherous of all is those politicians who intervene to influence outcomes on their own behalf or that of connected parties. This is the great fear where a Caribbean court of appeal is concerned, because the connections run deep from country to country.

“The view is that the law lords of the UK Privy Council are far removed from our everyday life and can afford to be dispassionate and as objective as humanly possible in rendering judgement. To lose that would be a fatal error.”

From an economic standpoint, a believable justice system is also critical because our region is seeking the big investors to bring in jobs. But they will never take us seriously as long as there is even the perception that they may not get justice in any potential dispute.

Dr Barnett betrays his own doubt in stating that “their (CCJ) method of appointment, the determination of their terms of engagement, and the financing of the court have been arranged in such a manner as to minimise, if not eliminate, the risks of such interference”, minimise being the operative word.

On what grounds does he therefore make such a bold statement?: “There is absolutely no evidence or even accusation that there has been such interference with the judges of the CCJ”. On that we can rest our case.

People like Dr Barnett argue all the time against hanging for murder, usually on the basis that in the event of a wrongful conviction an innocent man could lose his life.

It is on that same principle that we argue for retention of the UK Privy Council — to give that man the fullest opportunity to exhaust the benefits of the law to prove his innocence.