Dear Editor,
I recently had cause to do some research into the matter of reserve judgements as they apply to common law jurisdictions that include the UK, the USA and Canada.
I found it astonishing that, as with Jamaica, at the conclusion of a legal matter before the court, when a judge rules “reserve judgement” there is no time limit on his passing down judgement. In other words, when a judge “reserves judgement” he or she may take as long as he/she wishes — days, months, or even years — to pass down that judgement.
It is generally accepted that this appears to run contrary to the legal maxim that justice delayed is justice denied. Why then has no time limit been imposed on judges in respect of reserved judgements?
It also appears that there is no power that requires judges to communicate their judgement within a given time, and litigants and the public are left to the mercy and convenience of the judge as to when he or she does so.
Presumably, if he/she dies, say after a year or more without the reserved judgement being communicated, then the matter has to be brought back to court for a new judge to hear it and for him/her to take as long as he/she wishes.
One is conscious of the fact that the independence of the judiciary must be preserved, and interference by others would go contrary to this principle. So, presumably, that is possibly the case of Jamaica, where not even the chief justice has the authority to hasten a judgement.
However, if that is the case, whose interest is being served when time limits are not imposed on judges to deliver judgements by a certain date? One suspects the application of “no time limits” on reserved judgements is not in the interests of justice.
Is one even allowed to refer publicly to specific cases with a reserved judgement status without being slapped with some charge? Could this not be abused by the unscrupulous to keep a matter out of the public view for as long as possible until it is of little or no significance?
One wonders whether there are several matters in our courts in the reserve judgement category, and for just how long? Surely no time limit on judgements exposes our justice system to manipulation, especially if a delay could ultimately favour one party over another.
It would be interesting to know what the position of the legal fraternity in Jamaica is on this matter of reserve judgement. Could it be that this situation is nothing more than an imitation of the fictional court case from the novel Bleak House by Charles Dickens set in 1853?
Colonel Allan Douglas
Kingston 10
alldouglas@aol.com
I recently had cause to do some research into the matter of reserve judgements as they apply to common law jurisdictions that include the UK, the USA and Canada.
I found it astonishing that, as with Jamaica, at the conclusion of a legal matter before the court, when a judge rules “reserve judgement” there is no time limit on his passing down judgement. In other words, when a judge “reserves judgement” he or she may take as long as he/she wishes — days, months, or even years — to pass down that judgement.
It is generally accepted that this appears to run contrary to the legal maxim that justice delayed is justice denied. Why then has no time limit been imposed on judges in respect of reserved judgements?
It also appears that there is no power that requires judges to communicate their judgement within a given time, and litigants and the public are left to the mercy and convenience of the judge as to when he or she does so.
Presumably, if he/she dies, say after a year or more without the reserved judgement being communicated, then the matter has to be brought back to court for a new judge to hear it and for him/her to take as long as he/she wishes.
One is conscious of the fact that the independence of the judiciary must be preserved, and interference by others would go contrary to this principle. So, presumably, that is possibly the case of Jamaica, where not even the chief justice has the authority to hasten a judgement.
However, if that is the case, whose interest is being served when time limits are not imposed on judges to deliver judgements by a certain date? One suspects the application of “no time limits” on reserved judgements is not in the interests of justice.
Is one even allowed to refer publicly to specific cases with a reserved judgement status without being slapped with some charge? Could this not be abused by the unscrupulous to keep a matter out of the public view for as long as possible until it is of little or no significance?
One wonders whether there are several matters in our courts in the reserve judgement category, and for just how long? Surely no time limit on judgements exposes our justice system to manipulation, especially if a delay could ultimately favour one party over another.
It would be interesting to know what the position of the legal fraternity in Jamaica is on this matter of reserve judgement. Could it be that this situation is nothing more than an imitation of the fictional court case from the novel Bleak House by Charles Dickens set in 1853?
Colonel Allan Douglas
Kingston 10
alldouglas@aol.com