Dear Editor,
It is universally recognised that from the earliest days counsel has an overriding duty to the court, except not to disclose to the court a confession of guilt by his client without the client's permission. This duty naturally includes a duty to bring to the attention of a judge errors in his summation to a jury and not to use those errors as grounds of appeal when counsel recognises the error was made.
On the other hand, it is a mere convention that during such summation counsel on both sides say nothing to the judge. As a convention, it is not on the same footing of the lawful duty of counsel to assist the court at all times subject always to the exception shown.
Counsel for Vybz Kartel was threatened by His Lordship for trying to correct him during summation, and so I am calling on Parliament to legislate for the right of counsel on both sides to do as the counsel in this case did in trying to assist the court during summation.
No judge sitting with a jury should give the impression that he is an advocate for either side by expressing opinion on facts from which such influence can be drawn. The natural tendency of a jury is to accept the opinion of a judge and appeals have understandably been successful when a judge has so behaved. Appeals could be avoided if a judge is made by the legislators to refrain from so conducting his court, and counsel be allowed to take steps to correct the judge if an 'over-step' is made.
By the way, I must commend both prosecution and defence in the performance of their duties and the judge for surviving the trial which involved such legal technicalities and precedence. The Lord has made the judge not only bright but most durable.
Owen S Crosbie
Mandeville, Manchester
oss@cwjamaica.com
Judges can make errors too
-->
It is universally recognised that from the earliest days counsel has an overriding duty to the court, except not to disclose to the court a confession of guilt by his client without the client's permission. This duty naturally includes a duty to bring to the attention of a judge errors in his summation to a jury and not to use those errors as grounds of appeal when counsel recognises the error was made.
On the other hand, it is a mere convention that during such summation counsel on both sides say nothing to the judge. As a convention, it is not on the same footing of the lawful duty of counsel to assist the court at all times subject always to the exception shown.
Counsel for Vybz Kartel was threatened by His Lordship for trying to correct him during summation, and so I am calling on Parliament to legislate for the right of counsel on both sides to do as the counsel in this case did in trying to assist the court during summation.
No judge sitting with a jury should give the impression that he is an advocate for either side by expressing opinion on facts from which such influence can be drawn. The natural tendency of a jury is to accept the opinion of a judge and appeals have understandably been successful when a judge has so behaved. Appeals could be avoided if a judge is made by the legislators to refrain from so conducting his court, and counsel be allowed to take steps to correct the judge if an 'over-step' is made.
By the way, I must commend both prosecution and defence in the performance of their duties and the judge for surviving the trial which involved such legal technicalities and precedence. The Lord has made the judge not only bright but most durable.
Owen S Crosbie
Mandeville, Manchester
oss@cwjamaica.com
Judges can make errors too
-->