Court transformation finalized

Black Immigrant Daily News

BELMOPAN, Mon. Oct. 24, 2022

Today, the Senior Courts Bill and 12th Constitutional Amendment were passed in the Senate, finalizing the transformation of the judiciary. Senator Eamon Courtenay says the bill is modeled after the court systems in the Eastern Caribbean and Jamaica, thus the reason for the selection of Chief Justice Madam Louise Blenman, who has served as a justice of appeal on the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court. But one objection raised by lead opposition senator, Michael Peyrefitte, highlights a possible conflict, since according to him, the holder of the Chief Justice post would be able to influence decisions in the High Court and Court of Appeal.

He suggested that the Chief Justice would be able to sit on both courts, but the senator for the business community, Kevin Herrera, pointed out that section 189 of the legislation bars the Chief Justice from sitting on cases that she has heard in a lower court. This provision, however, is still not sufficient, according to Herrera.

“The issue that Senator Peyrefitte raised was precisely the one that we have raised as well. We had some significant issues with respect to the apparent conflict,” Senator Herrera said. “With respect to the Chief Justice hearing a case at the High Court and the potential to hear that case as well at the Court of Appeal. It seems as if though there was an attempt to address that issue, in paragraph 189.”

That section of the Senior Courts Bill states, “notwithstanding that the Chief Justice has jurisdiction to hear and determine matters before the Court of Appeal, the Chief Justice shall not hear and determine a matter before the Court of Appeal if the Chief Justice presided over that matter when the matter was before the High Court.”

Senator Herrera noted that while he thinks that it was addressed, there is still the appearance of a potential conflict, since the Chief Justice can influence who hears a case in the appellant court.

“If it is in the Chief Justice’s interest that a certain judge who might be more lenient or something on a case, he then can appoint that judge to hear that case in an attempt to influence a potential outcome. While it may have been addressed in paragraph 189, I still think to a certain extent the appearance of it which may give rise to further appeal possibly,” Senator Herrera said.

He suggested that the issue be addressed to ensure the objectivity of the courts is unquestionable and to further strengthen the bill.

Senator Courtenay also posited that there is a difference between controlling a court and controlling judges.

“I have supreme confidence in the Chief Justice, and supreme confidence in the judges of the Court of Appeal, to suggest, even as a matter of perception, that the Chief Justice would sit down and look at judges and try to pick one, and not this one and not the other, is disrespectful and bordering on contempt,” he said.

He went on to point out that the Chief Registrar in consultation with the President of the Court of Appeal, will select the judges who sit on appeal cases, not the Chief Justice.

NewsAmericasNow.com