Many claim the Privy Council right of appeal is an archaic colonial relic. But the 1997 World Development Bank Report - “The State In A Changing World” - argues otherwise

“All industrial countries – and many developing ones – rely on the judiciary to hold the executive accountable under the law and to interpret and enforce the terms of the constitution. Judicial independence has been repeatedly compromised in some countries, and in no country has the judiciary been immune from political efforts to override its decisions…

Many developing countries, including some with formal separation of powers, have few effective checks and balances on the actions of political leaders. In some countries legislative oversight is weak because of poor capacity and inadequate information. In others the executive dominates a compliant legislature…

To some extent, extraterritorial and international restraints can substitute for limitations on the ability of national institutions to enforce rules or to signal credibility that rules will remain reasonably stable over time. One option is to use international adjudication to underpin the domestic judicial system. Confidence in the Jamaican judicial system is buttressed by the fact that the United Kingdom’s Privy Council serves as its appellate court of last resort.” (page 99-101)

Which implies of course, that removing the Privy Council as the court of final appeal would lessen international confidence in our judicial system.

Many nationalists maintain that any decision about the Privy Council right of appeal is nobody’s business but our own. We are an independent nation in charge of our own affairs! Nobody can tell us what to do!

Which is true. But Jamaica is a small, poor and massively indebted country whose economy is heavily dependent on foreign investment. We have one of the world’s highest crime rates and largest proportional debt ratios. In such circumstances even the slightest threat of arbitrary and capricious state action might well send investors fleeing to safer havens. Our government should be taking great care to make no move which might in any way lessen our attractiveness to current and potential investors.

Which is not to say we must cravenly cringe before any and every demand made by international bodies. But independent Jamaica has retained the right of appeal to the Privy Council for nearly forty years. What sense can there be in removing that right at this point in time?

“Nuh call alligator long mouth till you cross the river” goes a famous local proverb. A nation should vigorously assert its independence when the economy is booming and foreign confidence in its capabilities is high. Not when it has had virtually zero economic growth for the past five years and has to regularly seek international loans to balance its budget.

The Privy Council right of appeal may well be a colonial relic which must eventually be ended. But first let us deal with our far more pressing social, economic and structural problems. Not the least of which is our under funded, inefficient and sometimes decrepit justice system. Talking about a Caribbean Court while we have raw sewage overflowing at the Half-Way Tree Court House seems almost comical. It would be far more beneficial for the country if the energy being expended on the Privy Council debate was channeled into formulating plans for the physical and administrative upgrading of our courts. And any money earmarked by the government for the possible Caribbean Court should be spent on implementing these plans.

A Caribbean Court of Appeal is very unlikely to inspire the same confidence as the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The total population of the English speaking population is only 5 million, which means a Caribbean Court would still be inherently subject to the possible conflicts of interest that all small entities face.

Gerald Brown is one person strongly opposed to replacing the Privy Council with a Caribbean Court. And his opposition is based on personal experience. In 1961 Mr. Brown was convicted of manslaughter and appealed to then West Indies Federal Court.  Mr. Brown was released in 1975 and has turned his life around. He is now a minister and as a sincere Christian he now speaks with candour and without rancour about his past.

“I am not saying I was not guilty. But believe me that makes no difference if you are in jail. You will try anything you can to get out or get your sentence reduced. But my guilt was not the point. It was the unjust manner in which my written appeal against sentence and conviction was handled. The three judges who heard my case were Justice Archer, Justice Lewis and Sir Alfred Renny, who was the court president. Mr. Renny invited me to speak, but before I had even spoken two words he stopped me and whispered to the judges on his right and left. I couldn’t hear him but I could read his lips saying “Twenty years?” Both simply nodded. There was no consultation whatsoever between them. He then turned to me and said he did not believe the trial judge in my case had misled the jury and that I was lucky I was not in England where the penalty for killing a policeman was hanging.  He said he was increasing my sentence from 15 to 20 years and told me to go. Before I could say a word I was taken away.

Now what made me feel particularly bitter was that Mr. Renny had the same name and a strong physical resemblance to a man I had misappropriated funds from about seven years before this. They were both light skinned and had very similar features. To this very day I wonder if they were related and if this had some bearing on the callous manner in which I was treated.

This is why I am dead set against the Privy Council being replaced by a Caribbean Court of Appeal. I do not think I was treated in a manner that could be even remotely called just. And I think my feelings are shared by most people who have had dealings with the court system and gone to jail. Jamaica and the Caribbean are simply too small. There will always be a great risk of a conflict of interest. Furthermore all judges come up through the court system and very often end up trying men they have had to deal with before. Our final court of appeal should be absolutely impartial without any risk of pre-conceived bias at all. And this is only possible with the Privy Council. You know the prisoners are the ones who will be most affected if it is abolished. And I think their views should be taken into consideration.”