We too would have appreciated a far more tempered response from the Justice Minister A. J. Nicholson to Supreme Court Judge Almarie Sinclair-Haynes' public complaint about the ministry's failure to appropriately secure her accommodation for this week's sitting of the Westmoreland Circuit Court.

However, unlike the Independent Jamaica Council for Human Rights (IJCHR), we cannot elevate Mr. Nicholson's comments as interference in the independence of the judiciary the broad principles enunciated by the IJCHR are meritorious and pertinent.

As has been reported, Justice Sinclair-Haynes and orderly turned up at night at the hotel where she was ostensibly booked, only to be advised that her lodgings were not secured because of the Justice Ministry's failure to pay. She could either pay herself or leave an imprint of her credit card.

The matter was not resolved and Justice Sinclair-Haynes found accommodation elsewhere for the night. The incident would, understandably, have been embarrassing for the judge, who next day spoke about it in open court.

She had been treated, Justice Sinclair-Haynes said, with discourtesy and disrespect and she warned that unless satisfactory arrangements were made for her accommodation she would not conduct the court.

In the circumstance, we are sympathetic to the judge's position as well as those who insist that the Justice Ministry acted incompetently. Yet, neither can we claim that Mr. Nicholson is entirely without merit in raising questions about the judge's public venting in the court. There is more than a germ of salience, many will say, in the minister's observations that the judge's remarks about what might be deemed a personal issue "pays scant regard to her fellow Jamaicans who came to her court on Monday, carrying with them the many burdens that had brought them to that place". The obvious conclusion in that regard was that "her perceived problems were greater than those of all persons who had gathered at the court".

In our view, it would have been better if Mr. Nicholson had simply apologised, provide assurance that his ministry would do better in the future, and moved on.

But that notwithstanding, it seems a bit much to say that the minister's statement could be interpreted as impinging on, or interfering with, the independence of the judge, and in that regard her ability to deliver quality justice.

The point is that judges cannot be immune from any form of criticism and be left to some kind of cloistered existence - as the combative Lensley Wolfe, the Chief Justice, well understands.

There are times when the behaviour and actions of persons in the political directorate will rise to interference with the judiciary and pose a threat to its independence. But we must be wary of crying wolf when the circumstance does not demand it.

This position, with regard to the specific issue, in no way diminishes our support for the broader and fundamental principles of judicial independence, as enunciated by the IJCHR, including the need for, as proposed by the Justice Reform Task Force, a clean separation of the judiciary from the executive arm of the Government. Funding the judiciary too, is a critical issue. The one used for the Caribbean Court of Justice is a useful model.