The Jamaican Bar Association (JAMBAR) is expressing concern over what it says are “some potentially serious practical issues” with the new security policy for entry into the Supreme Court building, downtown Kingston.

According to the Security Committee of the Supreme Court, the policy, which took effect in January, was implemented with a view to ensuring the safety and security of all the users of the court’s Public Building East.

However, the attorneys’ association, is arguing that “the policy, when taken together with [its] previous observations, has the potential to have an adverse effect on the principle of open justice”.

The open justice principle holds that court proceedings, subject to exceptional cases, must be held in public and should be subjected to public and professional scrutiny and that the courts will not act contrary.

Under the new measures, entry to Public Building East, through the rear entrance on Temple Lane, is being restricted to judges, court staff, police officers, jurors, and attorneys-at-law, with all other individuals required to use the main entrance on King Street.

However, attorneys who are not in possession of a General Legal Council (GLC) ID or government employee ID are not being permitted to use the rear entrance on Temple Lane. They, instead, must use the main entrance on King Street as well, where they are required to show a Government-issued ID and will be issued with a visitor’s pass restricting them to a particular floor.

Other visitors to the building are now being issued colour-coded passes, based on the floor being visited, thereby restricting them to a specific floor.

Visitors having more than one matter on the building are required to return to the point that the pass was issued and obtain a new pass that corresponds with the floor that he/she wishes to access. Upon entry to the building a Government-issued ID is required of all visitors with exceptions for the accused on bail and parties in civil matters. For individuals not in possession of a Government-issued ID, their particulars are recorded and verification done of their need to be on the building. The sweeping changes extend to journalists who cover and report on court proceedings.

On January 17, JAMBAR, which has been in dialogue with the Security Committee from the onset, sent a further letter to Supreme Court Judge Justice Vaughn Smith, who chairs the committee.

In the letter, signed by JAMBAR President Kevin Powell, the association said while it appreciates that the GLC is the regulatory authority for attorneys-at-law, there are sufficient reasons to allow for the use of a photo identification card issued by JAMBAR “to allow attorneys-at-law unrestricted access to the court, if the mischief the policy is intended to address is to accurately identify the persons gaining access to the courts”.

The association further pointed out that JAMBAR members “are first authenticated by the General Legal Council as attorneys-at-law entitled to practice in order to be admitted to JBA membership”. It said having consulted with the GLC, “we confirm that they have no objection with the use of a JBA ID”.

The association also contended that apart from those issues, “there are some potentially serious practical issues with the implementation of the policy”.

“Attorneys who do not have a GLC ID may have matters on more than one of the several floors of the court, including moving from one matter to another. The requirement to return to the front entrance of the court each time to be issued another visitor’s pass would not only cause inconvenience to the attorneys and their clients, but would delay the timely conduct of matters in the court. The issue becomes even more acute when matters are re-scheduled or assigned to a courtroom at the last minute,” the association pointed out.

“There may also be an issue in relation to access to sanitary facilities, such as restrooms are only on some floors and in some cases in good working condition on some floors. In addition, there would be considerable inconvenience in trying to access the Bar Association’s Robing Room, which is on the ground floor, and the Supreme Court Library, which is on the third floor,” JAMBAR said further.

As for the requirements for media personnel, JAMBAR said: “We observe that the policy makes no provision for media personnel. As you know, members of the media have a right, subject to reasonable limitations, to generally move unimpeded between courts to allow for the widest and most accurate reporting on court proceedings. There would be inconvenience and delay if they are to be required to return to obtain a new visitor’s pass each time they need to move to a different floor. This could be considered a breach the right to communicate and freedom of the press and be inimical to the public interest.”

The association said, “a similar observation can also be made about bearers and clerks of law offices, students from the Norman Manley Law School who are required to complete court attendance as part of their educational requirements and members of the public who are free to attend public court sittings”.

“When taken together with our previous observations, the policy has the potential to have an adverse effect on the principle of open justice,” it insisted.

In the meantime, in noting that the policy grants attorneys who produce a “government employee ID” unrestricted access to the court, JAMBAR has asked the committee to advise whether this applies to attorneys who are issued identification cards from the Jamaica Defence Force, as some of its members have.

Said JAMBAR: “We are aware that the Supreme Court Public Building East is a heritage site and there are restrictions on the physical changes which can be made to the building. This is an area of concern because the policy, even working at its best, will mean a delay in access to the court.”

The association, in the meantime, recommended that, “given the wide-ranging changes to be effected by the policy… the Supreme Court should engage in broader consultation, including with the General Legal Council, and greater public education prior to its full implementation”.

“In the circumstances, we invite the Security Committee to continue its engagement in broader consultation that, we believe, will serve the interests in the overall safety of the court, its staff and all its users. A key outcome is the use of methods that increase ease of access, including the acceptance of a JBA ID, which would not be inconsistent with the objectives of the policy,” the association stated.