ATTORNEY-AT-LAW Valerie Neita-Robertson has doubled down on her position that Jamaica should not, at this time, abandon the United Kingdom Privy Council for the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), saying that there first needs to be total trust that the regional court will adjudicate on matters without cultural, social, and political biases.

Neita-Robertson, a Queen’s Counsel, advanced her position in a column sent to the Jamaica Observer and published in today’s edition, just over two weeks after the Privy Council upheld the appeal of her client, Lescene Edwards, a former cop who was in 2013 sentenced to life in prison for the murder of his girlfriend.

Immediately after the Privy Council ruling, Neita-Robertson had praised the decision with a post on her Twitter page saying, “Justice lives. Justice delivered for an innocent man by the Privy Council. It’s heart [rending] that the land of your birth did not — long live the Privy Council.”

The tweet reignited a long-running and passionate debate on whether Jamaica should retain the Privy Council as the country’s final court of appeal or join the four Caribbean states that are now using the CCJ to determine criminal matters.

It also put her at odds with the Opposition People’s National Party for which she was a candidate in the 2020 General Election and which strongly advocates Jamaica moving to the CCJ.

Neita-Robertson, in her column, noted that proponents of the CCJ have advanced only two arguments: first, that the “CCJ will complete the cycle of independence as we shed ourselves of our colonial past, which includes our reliance upon the British judges, which they view as a judicial symbol of colonialism”, and second, that the court “will provide greater access to justice as people will be able to take matters to a final court at a much reduced cost if they are aggrieved by the decisions of the local court, and they can do so without having to apply for a visa”.

Pointing out that there is no question that the intellectual capacity of judges locally, throughout the Caribbean and at the CCJ compares favourably with judges elsewhere in the world, Neita-Robertson advised caution in moving to the CCJ.

“Firstly, we must be careful that as Jamaica moves towards the abolition of the Privy Council, that this is based on the trust and confidence we have in the CCJ to deliver justice and [is] not based upon any benefit or advantage to any political position or to advancing a particular government for political reasons,” she argued.

“We need to be confident that our political disputes are not going to be adjudicated within our region by people who are influenced by the cultural peculiarities, social and class biases which so affect us in our small space, as those are not considerations which should affect or even determine justice,” Neita-Robertson added.

“In the small societies in which we live and operate, it is a fact that cultural, social and political biases exist. We, as a country and a region, have not been successful in cauterising classism, social biases, etc and we cannot deny our reluctance to offend politicians who hold the reins of government. Too often there is an unwillingness to strike down the conduct of those who hold high office and wield political power,” she said.

“Our measure of the standard of justice that is required for all Jamaicans must be considered by references to decisions made by our local courts. These are the people who are likely to sit on the CCJ,” she argued.

Neita-Robertson pointed to a number of cases in Jamaica and the Eastern Caribbean in which the Privy Council overturned the decisions of local courts, some on evidence that should have been submitted at trial.

“One of my concerns which affects my confidence in the CCJ is that of the biases and prejudices we experience in our own countries. Judges in London are far removed from local circumstances and conditions and have little knowledge of same. This, therefore, allows them to approach a case with no preconceived notions, biases or desire to retaliate for real or imaginary grievances. Such fears cannot be dismissed or disregarded in today’s world,” she said.

“In small societies like ours, predetermined biases and hostility towards individuals because of knowledge of previous incidents, etc, are cold, hard facts of professional life commonly attested by many, including myself,” she added.

See full column on Pages 14 & 15