THE EDITOR, Sir:
IN YOUR article in the Sunday Gleaner, January 25, 2004 entitled 'Why the Court overturned these cases' you reviewed several appeal cases in which convictions have been set aside due to judicial error. The article was accompanied by a photograph of a particular judge who presided over some of those cases. Unfortunately since the judges involved in the cases were not named, the photo did give some people the wrong impression that the judge in the photo was involved in all of the cases.
Although cases over which that judge has presided have come under the spotlight recently, the fact is that judicial error by one judge or another is most often, if not always, the reason for reversal of convictions. That is not to say that fault does not sometimes lie elsewhere. For example, in the case of R v. Gregory Johnson, decided in 1996 the conviction was set aside because the prosecutor's outrageous conduct in the zealous pursuit of his case deprived the Appellant of a fair trial and to a probability prejudiced the jury's mind against the Appellant. Sometimes too, fault lies with defence counsel.
However, generally speaking, the judge must take some responsibility if not for his own error certainly for allowing other participants to mar the trial process. It is the judge who is in charge of the trial and it is his duty to balance the scales and ensure fairness. The Court of Appeal has been vigilant to correct these errors but, even so, sometimes these excesses escape it and have had to be corrected by the Privy Council in England. Your paper recently carried a full report on the Pringle case in which the Privy Council reversed the Court of Appeal's decision.
Your paper's interest in and coverage of judicial matters is indeed commendable and necessary for the protection of democracy and individual rights. Justice must not only be done but be seen to be done.
I am, etc.,
JACQUELINE
SAMUELS-BROWN
Attorney-at-law
Kingston
