The essence of the column ‘Concerns that affect my confidence in the CCJ’ by learned Queen’s Counsel (QC) Valerie Neita-Robertson carried in the April 26, 2022 edition of the Jamaica Observer is that she has no confidence or trust in members of the judiciary in Jamaica and indeed in the judiciary of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ).

The learned senior attorney-at-law made reference to these three cases in support of her argument:

1) Pratt and Morgan

2) Junior Reid and others

3) Mark Sangster vs The Queen

In making reference to these cases and others from the Eastern Caribbean, the learned QC proceeded to conclude that they are examples, and indeed conclusive evidence, of the need to maintain the Privy Council as our final Court of Appeal.

In her argument, the Privy Council is portrayed as an institution or as a court needed to rescue us from the injustices of the Jamaican judiciary and potentially the CCJ.

The line of reasoning put forward invites us to conclude that the Privy Council is busy correcting our judiciary and rescuing us from the oppressive, incompetent, and politically influenced judiciary in existence in Jamaica. However, QC Neita-Robertson should perhaps have taken a wholesome view of decisions of the Privy Council to see what percentage of the decisions of the local courts are being kicked out and overturned by the Privy Council in what, relying on the QC’s argument, is its rescue mission.

Between the year 2012 and 2022 the Privy Council dealt with 46 cases from Jamaica. Of those 46 cases the Privy Council denied/refused the appeals on 29 occasions, while appeals were successful only on 19 occasions. Among these are three cases in which appeal against sentence was successful, but the appeal against conviction by our local court was not successful.

The conclusion invited from these numbers is that the Privy Council, over this period, agreed with our judges more often than it disagreed. Indeed, the statistics are showing that over 63 per cent of the cases taken to the Privy Council from the Jamaica court saw the Privy Council agreeing with the local court during the 20-year period being looked at.

It is therefore unfortunate, if not unfair, to invite any conclusion that the Privy Council is rescuing Jamaican citizens from unfair and unjust decisions being made by our local judiciary. The statistics do not support such a conclusion.

What is even more difficult to accept is the inference of inadequacy, political influence, and incompetence amongst members of the legal profession in the Caribbean, which oozes from the QC’s article.

It is also instructive to note that in the editorial of April 28, 2022, the Observer celebrates the position taken by QC Neita-Robertson and in so doing took the opportunity to remind us of how competent and outstanding an attorney she is and that it wholeheartedly agreed with her opinion.

It is a well-known fact that there are people in the Caribbean and in Jamaica in particular who will willingly agree with an argument that the citizens of the Caribbean, including QC Neita-Robertson who declared herself to be “a proud black woman and a nationalist”, will never be competent, capable, or suitable to sit as judges in the final court for Jamaica.

QC Neita-Robertson’s argument is condemning all Caribbean citizens — black, brown, pink, or white — as unsuitable to ever sit as a judge in our final court. Which means that when she sees our judges or several attorneys from the Caribbean, including Jamaica, she is looking at people who, in her judgement should never ever sit as a judges in our final court as these judges and attorneys are incompetent and incapable of dispensing justice in an objective and impartial way.

The condemnation of herself and all members of the legal profession in the Caribbean is most regrettable and can only be responded to properly by saying that learned QC Neita-Robertson should speak for herself and herself only, and should never proceed to speak for all the judges and members of the legal profession in the Caribbean.

The editorial of the Observer hastily and wholeheartedly agreed with the position taken by the QC because the paper opposes any decision to remove the Privy Council as our final Court of Appeal.

We cannot continue to lack self-confidence and believe that we are incapable of managing our own affairs.

The CCJ has conducted its affairs as a competent and capable superior court. It is unfair for one to single out a case or two where an appeal against a decision of a court was successful and then proceed to use those cases to invite a conclusion of corruption, incompetence, and political influence. It is not the best way to reason out these matters and the conclusion so drawn is not reliable.

The time for us to move on from the Privy Council has long passed and the quicker we do so the better off we will be.

Relying on the Privy Council as our final Court continues to humiliate us, to belittle us, and to treat us as ‘Children of a Lesser God’ who have to look to England, where we cannot visit as we have no visa and cannot afford the cost of visiting.

Learned QC should revisit this matter and take a look at it from all angles.

Linton P Gordon is an attorney-at-law. Send comments to the Jamaica Observer or gordon@cwjamaica.com