The Judicial Oath for judges states: "I (name) do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Jamaica, that I will uphold and defend the Constitution of Jamaica, and that I will administer justice to all persons alike in accordance with the laws and usages of Jamaica without fear or favour, affection or ill will. So help me God."
Too many judges do not seem to be keeping the oath, and so should be removed as provided by the Constitution. I say this out of my experience of over 65 years professionally engaged in the system.
I have seen them deliver judgements without giving reasons, and when they do deliver reasons it is at any time they wish. For example, in the Pratt and Morgan case, it took four years for the court to deliver the reasons for judgement (A Jamaican Voice in the Caribbean and World Politics, by P J Patterson, p 88). What's worse, often the reasons given do not and cannot support the judgement.
Judges too often reserve judgement and instead of delivering the judgement themselves, have some other judge deliver same, thus depriving citizens of the right to make applications before them, such as a stay of execution or for leave to appeal without resulting in tremendous financial cost and time to make applications to another forum. The application is often not heard in a timely manner and too often refused without just cause.
In this context, the very existence of three levels of court and the amount of cases on appeal imply rampant injustice in the system and that too many judges are not doing their jobs well.
This raises some questions: Is the method of appointing judges satisfactory? They should be appointed in the same way as judges of the Caribbean Court of Justice, which can be found in the Patterson publication mentioned.
I find some judges today intellectually thin, arrogant and ignorant of laws and procedures. The record shows that there were not so many of these judges years ago, even by contrasting the quality of judgements. The system is only surviving by too few absolutely brilliant and suitable ones who have come through the cracks of a very poor system of appointment.
Owen S Crosbie
Mandeville, Manchester
oss@cwjamaica.com
Judging judges
-->
Too many judges do not seem to be keeping the oath, and so should be removed as provided by the Constitution. I say this out of my experience of over 65 years professionally engaged in the system.
I have seen them deliver judgements without giving reasons, and when they do deliver reasons it is at any time they wish. For example, in the Pratt and Morgan case, it took four years for the court to deliver the reasons for judgement (A Jamaican Voice in the Caribbean and World Politics, by P J Patterson, p 88). What's worse, often the reasons given do not and cannot support the judgement.
Judges too often reserve judgement and instead of delivering the judgement themselves, have some other judge deliver same, thus depriving citizens of the right to make applications before them, such as a stay of execution or for leave to appeal without resulting in tremendous financial cost and time to make applications to another forum. The application is often not heard in a timely manner and too often refused without just cause.
In this context, the very existence of three levels of court and the amount of cases on appeal imply rampant injustice in the system and that too many judges are not doing their jobs well.
This raises some questions: Is the method of appointing judges satisfactory? They should be appointed in the same way as judges of the Caribbean Court of Justice, which can be found in the Patterson publication mentioned.
I find some judges today intellectually thin, arrogant and ignorant of laws and procedures. The record shows that there were not so many of these judges years ago, even by contrasting the quality of judgements. The system is only surviving by too few absolutely brilliant and suitable ones who have come through the cracks of a very poor system of appointment.
Owen S Crosbie
Mandeville, Manchester
oss@cwjamaica.com
Judging judges
-->