Dear Editor,
We note that no sooner than the date for the Senate Debate on the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) Bills has been announced, the Observer renews its campaign for a negative vote.
In this letter, I wish to address the assertion made by the Editor-at-Large, H G Helps, in a front-page story of the Sunday Observer of the September 13, 2015 that the failure of the Barbados Government to pay Attorneys' costs arising out of the judgment in the Shanique Myrie case "could have serious implications for the CCJ". He attributes that sentiment to an unnamed "senior attorney contacted by the Sunday Observer".
So, it is the view of that "senior attorney" that the prolonged delay in making judgement debt payments or costs to attorneys from any quarter undermines confidence in the court from which the judgement was delivered or has "serious implications for that court".
With respect, the "senior attorney" has exhibited some wisdom in asking not to be named. For, his assertion, as reported, amounts to substantial misunderstanding of the system of administration of justice.
The enforcement of a judgement or order for costs against a sovereign Government is not a matter for court processes. This is as true in relation to the UK Privy Council as it is for the CCJ. In Jamaica, this is enshrined in the Crown Proceedings Act, which has its origin in a UK statute of the same name, and exists in various forms across Commonwealth jurisdictions.
It is founded on the fundamental constitutional principle that, in raising revenue from the public and expending those resources, Governments must operate within budgets that have been approved by Parliament, and the payment of amounts awarded by the courts against the Government must await being funded out of sums that have been appropriated by Parliament for that purpose. An orderly system of conducting public finances is necessary for protecting the rule of law.
This has nothing to do with the quality of the court or the effectiveness of its processes, and everything to do with the separation of powers and the appropriate boundaries of the respective provinces of each branch of the State in the Westminster system of government.
Accordingly, in our own domestic situation there are instances of judgements and costs awarded against the Government of Jamaica by the courts, including the UK Privy Council, being outstanding for periods greater than that for which Ms Myrie's attorneys have been waiting on the Government of Barbados for payment of their fees. The speed of payment is, of necessity, affected by available fiscal resources and the competing priorities of the national budget.
We are confident that the Government of Barbados, having already paid Ms Myrie the sum awarded by the CCJ, will in due course settle the obligation with respect to costs arising from that litigation, and we encourage it to do so as expeditiously as it can.
Mark Golding
Minister of Justice
Barbados will pay Myrie's lawyers when it can
-->
We note that no sooner than the date for the Senate Debate on the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) Bills has been announced, the Observer renews its campaign for a negative vote.
In this letter, I wish to address the assertion made by the Editor-at-Large, H G Helps, in a front-page story of the Sunday Observer of the September 13, 2015 that the failure of the Barbados Government to pay Attorneys' costs arising out of the judgment in the Shanique Myrie case "could have serious implications for the CCJ". He attributes that sentiment to an unnamed "senior attorney contacted by the Sunday Observer".
So, it is the view of that "senior attorney" that the prolonged delay in making judgement debt payments or costs to attorneys from any quarter undermines confidence in the court from which the judgement was delivered or has "serious implications for that court".
With respect, the "senior attorney" has exhibited some wisdom in asking not to be named. For, his assertion, as reported, amounts to substantial misunderstanding of the system of administration of justice.
The enforcement of a judgement or order for costs against a sovereign Government is not a matter for court processes. This is as true in relation to the UK Privy Council as it is for the CCJ. In Jamaica, this is enshrined in the Crown Proceedings Act, which has its origin in a UK statute of the same name, and exists in various forms across Commonwealth jurisdictions.
It is founded on the fundamental constitutional principle that, in raising revenue from the public and expending those resources, Governments must operate within budgets that have been approved by Parliament, and the payment of amounts awarded by the courts against the Government must await being funded out of sums that have been appropriated by Parliament for that purpose. An orderly system of conducting public finances is necessary for protecting the rule of law.
This has nothing to do with the quality of the court or the effectiveness of its processes, and everything to do with the separation of powers and the appropriate boundaries of the respective provinces of each branch of the State in the Westminster system of government.
Accordingly, in our own domestic situation there are instances of judgements and costs awarded against the Government of Jamaica by the courts, including the UK Privy Council, being outstanding for periods greater than that for which Ms Myrie's attorneys have been waiting on the Government of Barbados for payment of their fees. The speed of payment is, of necessity, affected by available fiscal resources and the competing priorities of the national budget.
We are confident that the Government of Barbados, having already paid Ms Myrie the sum awarded by the CCJ, will in due course settle the obligation with respect to costs arising from that litigation, and we encourage it to do so as expeditiously as it can.
Mark Golding
Minister of Justice
Barbados will pay Myrie's lawyers when it can
-->