Your editorial on Thursday, January 12, 2023 asserts in its penultimate paragraph that Jamaica’s “limping justice system is obviously not ready to leave the Privy Council”.

I hope that I am not misinterpreting you in thinking that you are saying that the courts are limping and so are not ready to be delinked from the Privy Council. If my interpretation is correct, I would say that the Jamaica Observer and its editor or editors are entitled to a view that I do not share.

Given the general meaning of the word “limp”, I would say that it is rather harsh to apply such a term to the Jamaican courts. Every single day of the work week the courts are sitting and functioning at every level. That is a fact. And there is robust litigation activity in each every such day. The courts are manned by competent staff and are presided over by people of integrity who are not subject to the dictates of the executive, media houses, or anyone else. The judges are hard-working. They do not just work in the courtrooms and in their chambers during daytime working hours. They work at home at nights, on weekends, and public holidays, and in some cases during their vacation leave.

Every single day decisions of all types are handed down in these courts without fear or favour. These decisions relate to matters between citizen and citizen as well as between citizens and the State. The courts are open to all except for trials of offences involving sex and the illegal use of guns as well as in some family matters. In my view, there is no evidence of limping in the courts.

There is no doubt that from time to time the courts do experience problems of shortage of personnel, equipment, or space. That is not a problem peculiar to Jamaica. There is no court in the Commonwealth that does not have such problems from time to time. These problems exist in countries far wealthier than ours and where there are far less cases than our courts have to deal with.

Where there is criminal activity as wanton as it is in Jamaica, it is inevitable that there will be significant delay in some hearings. That doesn’t mean that the courts are limping. What is required is a lessening of criminal activity. Attention needs to be turned to the hearts of the beasts who are executing citizens at random.

If there is limping, I am surprised that the Observer thinks staying with the Privy Council is the solution. That is, to my mind, laughable as the Privy Council, being the final court, cannot be separated from the limping system. It would be part of the problem.

I seem to recall, but I may be wrong, that there was a time when the Observer advocated for Jamaica to separate itself from the Privy Council. I will do further checks on this in due course. If there was such a position by the Observer, then it would be good for the Observer to say what has happened since then to change its view. As I say, I will get back to this in due course.

I have been publicly stating my position on the need to abolish the Privy Council since 1991. I will continue to do so until it happens, or time with me is no more. I am hoping that it will happen this year. It is absolutely infradig and outrageous for a so-called independent Jamaica to be having its final court in England. It is a British colonial set-up that should have been done away with long ago. Where is our pride? Doesn’t pride matter? Are we still thinking, as was suggested a few years ago, that we should keep it because it is free? Freeness mentality?

There is nothing to gain from retaining links with this colonial court. We are giving the impression that we cannot determine our legal issues, which is not a true position. It is a fallacy to think that every decision given by the Privy Council is the right decision or that the Privy Council is the only court that gives just and correct decisions. For many years now Australia, Canada, and New Zealand have broken with the Privy Council. Their citizens have never needed, and still do not need, a visa to enter the United Kingdom. Jamaicans need a visa to do so, although we still cling to the kilt of the Privy Council.

I have repeatedly asked for an official reason why the Australians, etc do not need a visa whereas we do. The answer has not been forthcoming. I will not, at this time, say what I think is the reason. In any event, it is not an answer to abolish visas for only those who have cases before the Privy Council. That would be discriminatory. It is just high time for Jamaica to leave the Privy Council.

In closing, I think Jamaicans, especially those lawyers who have been trained in the Caribbean, should be reminded that there was opposition to the establishment of a school of law in Jamaica to train our lawyers. It was said then by the colonialists among us that we did not have the ability to train lawyers who would be the equivalent of barristers-at-law trained in England. Consequently, people like me had to go to England. I was fortunate in that my parents were there. Many others were not able to achieve their dream of becoming lawyers because they could not go to England. Similar forces are at work today trying to hold on to our unfortunate colonial past.

— Seymour Panton, OJ, CD is the chairman of the Integrity Commission and a former president of the Court of Appeal