CHIEF JUSTICE SIR MARSTON GIBSON would like Barbadians not to view the Supreme Court as a cold detached place which the average citizen should avoid. We agree with him and feel he is well positioned to change perceptions.
The judiciary, as one of the three distinct branches of Government, is not in the spotlight like the others – the legislature and the executive. These three arms, working independently, have as their focus the building of democracy.
The judiciary’s role is to interpret and adjudicate on the laws passed by the legislature as well as on the common law. It is also to resolve disputes between citizens, or between citizens and the state, in accordance with those laws.
In the old court complex at Coleridge Street, there was a connection between those in the justice system and the public even if there was an aloofness. The sternness of judges was evident, while many a lawyer made a name based primarily on criminal cases. The courtyard lawyers were always present, and popular cases attracted the crowds.
Anecdotal evidence has suggested that the public keeps away from the courts, and this seems to hold true at the new complex. The curious onlookers are gone and if you have no business in this grand edifice, you are certainly not welcomed. It has reinforced the image of the courts as a place primarily for judges, lawyers and their officials, with the public seen almost as intruders there, taking commands which they may not even understand.
There is no doubt the courts carry out essential services as impartial arbiters in the interest of the public and in deference to the roles of the legislature and the executive. But it should not come across as closed and non-transparent. The courts must be open to a public eager to witness and watch as the judges listen to the legal arguments and deliver judgments.
Our Chief Justice should seek to ensure that justice becomes easily accessible to the ordinary citizen; that costs are contained when seeking justice; that the Registry is accommodating to inquiries and requests for information, and that litigation is not unnecessarily drawn out.
More importantly, he should look at the court’s communications skills, which are largely outmoded. Our Supreme Court should take a look at what the Caribbean Court of Justice does to reach out to not only those in the legal profession, but particularly to the average citizen.
We should know about our judges and their areas of expertise and hear them speak and write on non-contentious issues. That old belief that a judge must be withdrawn from society is both archaic and absurd.
Sir Marston, as someone exposed to both British and American jurisprudence, has an opportunity to initiate change. He should ensure he does not leave the Supreme Court as he found it.
