“…in an ideal world, Commonwealth countries – including those in the Caribbean – would stop using the Privy Council and set up their own final courts of appeal instead” (Lord Phillips, 2009).
In December 2012, the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) launched its Strategic Plan for 2013 to 2017 under the theme Responsive, Innovative, Inspirational. Its Mission is clear: “To protect and promote the rule of law as a court of final appeal and as guardian of the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas by guaranteeing accessibility, fairness, efficiency and transparency, delivering clear and just decisions in a timely manner.”
Inter alia, its vision is “to be a leader in providing high quality justice”. The CCJ has highly qualified and experienced judges. The equipment at its headquarters is ‘first-class’. Is it time for T&T to embrace the CCJ fully?
On February 14, 2001, the following 12 countries signed an agreement establishing the CCJ: Antigua & Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, St Kitts & Nevis, St Lucia, Suriname and Trinidad & Tobago, to be followed in 2003 by Dominica and St Vincent & the Grenadines.
The CCJ has two jurisdictions: an original and an appellate jurisdiction. In its Original jurisdiction, “it interprets and applies the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas which established the Caribbean Community and is an international court with compulsory and exclusive jurisdiction in interpreting the Treaty of Chaguaramas. In its Appellate jurisdiction, it hears appeals in both civil and criminal matters from those member states which have ceased to allow appeals to the JCPC [Judicial Committee of the Privy Council]” (http://www.caribbeancourtofjustice.org/).
On April 16, 2005, the CCJ was inaugurated at a ceremony in Port of Spain. Its headquarters is in T&T. To date, only Barbados, Guyana and Belize have replaced the JCPC’s appellate jurisdiction with that of the CCJ. Last week it was reported that the Prime Minister of Dominica, Hon Roosevelt Skerrit, stated that Dominica has written to inform the UK government of its intention to replace the JCPC with the CCJ.
In April 2012, our Prime Minister, Hon. Kamla Persad-Bissessar, announced that “As a measure of our growing confidence in the CCJ, and as a mature and leading world democracy, in this year of our 50th independence anniversary, we will table legislation acceding to the criminal appellate jurisdiction of the CCJ … It is almost axiomatic that the Caribbean Community should have its own final Court of Appeal in all matters; that the West Indies at the highest level of jurisprudence should be West Indian. A century old tradition of erudition and excellence in the legal profession of the region leaves no room for hesitancy in our Caribbean region…We will continue to monitor the developments taking place in both the JCPC (Privy Council) and CCJ including the quality of their decisions in deciding the future course of our judicial system”.
We are still waiting for legislation to be brought to Parliament to replace the JCPC as T&T’s final appellate court and to replace it with the CCJ with respect to criminal matters. Civil matters will still go before the JCPC. The move to the CCJ will require a special majority vote of our Parliament.
I was present on September 29, 2011 at the Inaugural Distinguished Jurist Lecture of the T&T Judicial Education Institute when Sir Shridath Ramphal, during his presentation on the theme Creating a Regional Jurisprudence, urged those who signed the 2001 Agreement to stop “loitering on the doorstep of colonialism”. He said: “If we continue to loiter, the interests of the law in the Commonwealth will almost certainly require removal of the doorstep. Must we wait for such eviction when we have already built for Caribbean law so fine a dwelling here?
“…Creating a regional jurisprudence is inseparable from the issue of the Caribbean Court of Justice…Most fundamental perhaps is our continuing failure to face up to the reality of legal systems that are generally inaccessible to the ordinary person… The escalating costs of legal services and the added burden of intolerable delays of the justice system everywhere tell us (when we choose to listen) that the law is day by day failing to serve our publics.”
Much more must be done to educate the public about the CCJ, its operations, activities, and its benefits and today we join that effort. Visit the CCJ website (see above) or the Court between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. at 134 Henry Street, Port of Spain.
The Court Judgment
A summary of the Judgment of the CCJ in the case of Marjorie Ilma Knox v John Vere, Evelyn Dean et al (2012) (CCJ 4 (AJ) is outlined below by Shaniel Hunter, Norman Manley Law School.
Over 30,000 people have been successfully treated around the world with their list of renewable energy industries, they hope to add geothermal energy to that list in the near future. https://pdxcommercial.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Brochure-1.pdf viagra without prescription It’s the duty of women to make up his mood but she being tired sildenafil österreich and stressed out cannot carry out any such activity. The wide life amendment may hit our sexual buy sildenafil cheap wish. Attracting girls comes easy for some guys, but for the high price, some of the patients are not able to take the hard pill; hence, they cheap buy viagra were deprived of the treatment. Re: Marjorie Ilma Knox v John Vere, Evelyn Dean et al [2012] CCJ 4 (AJ)
The Caribbean Court of Justice has made a strong statement that neither ‘poverty’ nor ‘foreignness’ can be used to hinder access to justice. It overturned a Court of Appeal decision ordering Ms Knox to pay, before her appeal could even be heard, the sum of $175,000 as security for costs (i.e. the legal expenses that might be incurred by the respondent if Ms Knox lost her appeal). The Court of Appeal’s order had been made on the basis that Ms Knox, who lived in Miami and had limited finances, would not be able to pay those expenses if her appeal was unsuccessful. In overturning this decision, the CCJ strongly emphasised that an order for security cannot automatically be made because a litigant is a foreigner or is of limited financial means. Instead there must be a balancing exercise which takes into account (1) the ability of a litigant to pay the costs of the appeal if he is unsuccessful, (2) the special circumstances of the case and (3) whether it is just to make the order. It is also important that the amount of security ordered to be paid must be reasonable. Therefore the amount ordered must be based on the guidelines contained in the rules of court. The Knox decision demonstrates that the CCJ is committed to ensuring that persons from all walks of life are able to access the justice system. The court will make sure that in principle the doors of the courthouse must remain open to all; whether you are rich, poor, foreign or local.
This summary is intended to assist the Caribbean public in learning more about the work of the CCJ. It is not a formal document of the Court. The judgment of the Court is the only authoritative document and may be found at http://www.caribbeancourtofjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/2012-CCJ-4-AJ.pdf.
The Church Teaching
CCSJ Chair Leela Ramdeen seeks to locate the Judgment within the context of Catholic Social Teaching.
“I am not the evangeliser of democracy, I am the evangeliser of the Gospel. To the Gospel message, of course, belongs all the problems of human rights, and if democracy means human rights then it also belongs to the message of the Church.” (Blessed John Paul II, 1987).
The findings of the CCJ in this case reflect the teachings of our Church in relation to justice. We are called to develop a spirituality of justice and to play our part in building communities of justice and peace. The social justice principle of the “option for the poor”; the Gospel imperative to welcome the “stranger” and demonstrate love for our “neighbour” are pertinent here if we are to build an inclusive society. The CCJ’s judgment that neither ‘poverty’ nor ‘foreignness’ can be used to hinder access to justice is closely linked also to the social justice principles of the “dignity of the human person and human rights”.
In seeking to explain “Justice” from a Catholic perspective, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI rightly stated in January 2012 that “Justice is a virtue which guides the human will, prompting us to give others what is due to them by reason of their existence and their actions.” See the ‘balancing exercise’ that is recommended by the Judges to ensure there is justice for all. It brings to mind the statement that: “Capital punishment is for those who do not have capital.” There continues to be obstacles that stand in the way of everyone accessing justice, which is a fundamental and democratic right, and, as Jacob Zuma, President of South Africa, said in 2011, is “a central pillar of a free and equal society”.
Blessed John Paul II stated in his address at the General Assembly of the UN in 1979 that “rights are bestowed on human beings by God and grounded in the nature and dignity of human persons. They are not created by society. Indeed society has a duty to secure and protect them”. Catholics must raise their awareness of the social teachings of our Church. See, for example:
– the Second Vatican Council’s 1964 Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et Spes), Article 29 (2): “Any kind of social or cultural discrimination in basic personal rights on the grounds of sex, race, colour, social conditions, language or religion must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God’s design.” This clearly reflects the Church’s teaching about equality before God and under the law;
– The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church , Section VI on Human Rights – para 152 to 159;
– The Charter of Rights listed by Pope John XXIII in his Encyclical, Peace on Earth (1963);
– Blessed John Paul II’s list of human rights in his Encyclical Centesimus Annus (The Hundredth Year) (1991);
– Blessed John Paul II’s Message on the World Day of Peace 1999 focuses on: Respect for human rights: The secret of true peace.
