Editorial | Court should control budget

The central government’s continued control of where, when and how to undertake major capital works on courts cries out for a reform of, not only this anomaly, but of facets of the justice system.

These include the process by which judges are appointed; how the justice system, or elements of it, is financed; and Chief Justice Bryan Sykes’ pet peeve: that trial by jury, rather than by judges only, is the default arrangement in Jamaica.

These matters should at least be subject to urgent analyses and debate.

Chief Justice Sykes has in the past raised concerns about the justice ministry’s control of the budget for major capital works for courts. He returned to the issue last week, lamenting that the rebuilding of courthouses had figured little in post-Hurricane Melissa discussions, and insisting that the judiciary should be in full charge of its budget.

“It is said that we are a co-equal arm of government, but it needs to be reflected in reality,” the chief justice said at a swearing-in ceremony for new acting appointees at the Supreme Court.

Jamaica has a hybrid system for oversight of the justice system, which, constitutionally, is an independent arm of government. A 2016 amendment to the Judicature Act formally established the Court Administration Division (CAD) as a separate body, accountable to the chief justice, that has responsibility for the day-to-day management and operation of the court system.

While CAD oversees basic maintenance of courthouses, it is barred from “major capital works in relation to courts”. That remains the purview of the justice ministry, as do the “procurement of motor vehicles for the judiciary” and “data collection for court management information systems”.

DO A BETTER JOB

Justice Sykes apparently believes that the judiciary, and CAD, can do a better job than the justice ministry in determining the judicial system’s priorities, and to more efficiently spend any money allocated to it.

Complaining in 2024 about Jamaica’s rundown courthouses, and pushing back against Justice Minister Delroy Chuck’s arguments that the judiciary’s wishes often collided with competing priorities faced by the government, Justice Sykes effectively called for the judiciary to be voted adequate sums, including for major capital works, and left to get on with the job.

He said at the time: “One solution is to do what has been done in Guyana, for example, and in Kenya. …The judiciary prepares its budget and the allocation comes directly from parliament. It isn’t mediated through any Ministry of Justice.”

Last week, in the face of major damage to, and destruction of, courthouses in western Jamaica by the October hurricane, the chief justice said that “the time has now come for us to be given greater control over the capital budget”.

“And this is really in keeping with what I was told some time ago,” he said.

The Gleaner remains sympathetic to Justice Sykes’ position. Indeed, in the context of the separation of powers and independence of the judiciary, control of the judiciary’s purse is the primary way that the executive may exert leverage over courts and judges. The less the likelihood of this happening, the greater, potentially, is the independence of the judiciary. Which is good for society.

CCJ FUNDING MODEL

It is in that context that The Gleaner repeats its suggestion that Jamaica looks at the funding model of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), and the possibility of its application to the island’s justice system, or parts of it. The CCJ’s operations are financed from the earnings of a trust fund that was established by Caribbean governments to provide the court with insulation against the whims of regional treasuries.

We appreciate that funding a large national judicial system would be a vastly more complex and costly exercise than the CCJ. That, however, doesn’t mean that it is impossible for a trust fund mechanism to work, or that it can be achieved on a phased basis.

In addition to considering that idea, there should be a parallel discussion on a system for appointing judges that offers greater transparency and is open to a wider base of talent - a position with which Justice Sykes appears to be sympathetic and has promised to interrogate. The review process should also include a consideration of term limits for the chief justice and the president of the Court of Appeal, rather than the status quo of their retention of the jobs until retirement at age 70, with little possibility for removal and renewal.

Justice Sykes’ consistent advocacy for bench trials is against the chronic failure of summoned jurors, especially middle class professionals, to attend court. They find myriad excuses. This is exacerbated by the large swathe of professions exempt as jurors.

The situation affects the mix of juries, as well as the timely hearing of cases, contributing to the backlog in courts.

Minister Chuck has long promised parliamentary hearings in Justice Sykes’ proposal. He must get on with it.