DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (DPP) Charles Leacock QC has suggested that Barbados move from jury to judge-only trials. Hopefully, this idea will spark some public discourse, not only from lawyers and legal scholars, but also the average citizen.
This issue of jurisprudence and the dispensing of justice touches us all and is a bedrock of our democracy. Mr Leacock’s idea may upset many people, especially those who hold steadfastly to tradition.
Trial by jury has been a hallowed Barbadian norm; indeed, many see it as a fundamental right. Yet, it is a vanishing tool used especially in criminal cases in many Commonwealth nations after which we model most of our legal practices. In the United States as well, the practice of juries judging their peers is in rapid decline.
The DPP has set out a strong argument backed by facts, and when taken to a logical conclusion, it makes sense. In criminal cases this approach of doing away with juries may make for faster outcomes.
There has never been any guarantee that juries are so seized of the legal facts and without prejudices and biases that they will better deliver justice. However, juries are important within the community and can serve as checks on the power of the state.
A trial involving a jury is the one place where the legal system can be meticulously scrutinised, in the process stemming any abuse of prosecutorial power.
What Mr Leacock’s suggestion may do in the case of Barbados is to further separate the people from active participation in the judicial system beyond being mere respondents, defendants and witnesses.
The aloofness of our justice system has been made worse with the opening of the new Halls Courts of Justice complex, where citizens rarely go these days to hear legal arguments in cases which ought to be in the public’s interest.
This is a far cry from the days when many were avid spectators at criminal cases, in particular, soaking up arguments presented by prosecutors and defence counsel.
There is now a coldness and detachment which cannot serve the country’s best interest. Too much happens behind closed doors or away from public glare.
This is why the debate on the merits and demerits of the DPP’s suggestion is so critical and must involve the wider public who will want to know all the facts, including whether we will witness more “bench trials” under the proposed change.
Barbadians already openly comment in less than favourable terms about the judicial system and the way they feel it is not working to their advantage. This is why any recommended changes must not undermine – or even appear to undermine – the quality of our legal system.
