Dear Editor,

I am deeply concerned about the recently issued memorandum from the chief justice of Jamaica, which requires that members of the public present a government-issued identification (ID).

The memorandum also lists certain exceptions to that requirement, stating that: “Any other member of the public wishing to enter the court building who is not in possession of a government issued ID will be required to produce a current letter (dated not more than 12 months prior to date of production) signed and sealed by a Justice of the Peace (JP) confirming his/her identity together with a photograph certified by the said JP.” These requirements appear to be unnecessary and unlawful restrictions on the constitutional right to open justice.

The Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (Constitutional Amendment) Act under section 16(3) guarantees the right to a fair and public trial. There are, naturally, exceptions to this right, outlined in subsection (4) of the same Act, none of which apply here. The standard is accepted to be open justice. Courts do not operate in secrecy, and the principle of open justice is a cornerstone of democracy. The new requirements impose an unreasonable barrier to the public’s ability to observe court proceedings, which are — by law and tradition — meant to be accessible to all.

Further, it appears that the restrictions are to be inconsistently applied as they are not universal requirements across all courts. The new restrictions are stated to be in pursuit of the safety and security measures for entry into the Supreme Court (Public Building East), with no apparent similar restrictions placed on the adjoining Public Building North of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal, or the parish courts. What legitimate purpose do these restrictions serve? Transparency and accountability should be paramount in judicial proceedings, yet this memorandum introduces an element of exclusion and bureaucratic gatekeeping.

The assumption that every person should have a government-issued ID because we live in the century that we do does not negate the fact that everyone does not have such an ID. The cultural nuances of this country support that likely reality. For those people who neither drive a vehicle, nor vote, nor have a passport, there ought not to be an expectation that they have an ID.

Additionally, the alternative requirement for a certified photograph raises issues of discrimination. There is an assumption that everyone has both the opportunity and financial means to obtain a suitable photograph of himself/herself. Further, is the certified photograph returned to visitors upon their departure, or is it retained by the court permanently? If it is the latter, under what security and data protection measures is the photograph (along with the letter from the JP) retained by the court, and for how long?

Moreover, there is an implicit assumption that those seeking to enter a courtroom are Jamaicans familiar with these new rules. How would an ordinary Jamaican, with no prior notice, know about this requirement before attempting to attend court? And what of foreign visitors, journalists, or legal observers who wish to view proceedings as part of their professional duties, academic interest, or indeed, just general interest? Requiring them to obtain documentation that they may not even have access to is an unreasonable and exclusionary measure.

At a time when justice should be more accessible, not less, this newly stated “policy” must be justified in light of the constitutional rights it appears to infringe upon. Its purpose, necessity, and legality should be clearly explained and defended, particularly when it seems to impose barriers that undermine the principles of transparency and public participation in the legal system.

To state that it is to ensure safety and security of all users of the court building is not enough. Screening machines, manual searches, and X-ray machines have been used internationally and indeed locally to minimise any threats to safety and security posed by members of the public entering into court buildings. Why is one building alone, the Supreme Court (Public Building East), being made subject to this, in my opinion, unconstitutional policy?

Wendy Beswick

Attorney-at-law

wendybeswick@gmail.com