You are not logged in.

Announcement

Welcome to the the original, the one and only, Spiceislander Talkshop. The site remains Grenadian owned and hosted in the United States.

#1 Dec 05, 2017 7:59 am

New Historian
Active

The Privy Council versus Caribbean Court of Justice

Only 3 countries currently subscribe to the CCJ: Barbados, Guyana and Dominica - how lame is that? Although the Court is based in Trinidad, T&T still bends the knee to London. It costs a FORTUNE to take a case to the PC, does that help to make the legal system "accessible" to ordinary citizens? The Privy Council is made up of learned M'luds from UK, stuffy old codgers who are totally removed from the society, values and mores of the people whom they deem to judge. They freed Abu Bakr after the attempted coup in Trinidad, on the flimsiest of legal technicalities; that the President who signed the "pardon" to free the Prime Minister and dozens of others from the Red House, didn't actually have a gun pointed to HIS head, therefore it could not be ruled as duress. Legal bunkum, the man was clearly under duress! And now Bakr sending Muslims to fight with ISIS, god help T&T when those Jihadist killers come back!

A good legal summary of the arguments at the link below. What does allyu think?

"The Privy Council served as a viable and useful mechanism during the Caribbean’s colonial phase, and even during the infancy of its independent phase. Now, however, CARICOM has provided a more suitable option in the form of the CCJ. Although the court requires Caribbean states to fund and manage their own avenue for appeals, each state gains much from their investment: a regional court with careful checks and balances on its neutrality, a modern and efficient process, reduced costs to litigants, and the creation of a body of Caribbean jurisprudence."


http://www.nowgrenada.com/2016/10/privy … ersus-ccj/

Offline

#2 Dec 05, 2017 8:57 am

Dancer
Active

Re: The Privy Council versus Caribbean Court of Justice

3 countries . What  shame .
The others seem afraid to cut the colonial navel strings.
Trust might be an issue too.

Offline

#3 Dec 05, 2017 11:13 am

Real Distwalker
Active

Re: The Privy Council versus Caribbean Court of Justice

I have a solution...

Offline

#4 Dec 05, 2017 11:57 am

Expat
Active

Re: The Privy Council versus Caribbean Court of Justice

New Historian wrote:

Only 3 countries currently subscribe to the CCJ: Barbados, Guyana and Dominica - how lame is that? Although the Court is based in Trinidad, T&T still bends the knee to London. It costs a FORTUNE to take a case to the PC, does that help to make the legal system "accessible" to ordinary citizens? The Privy Council is made up of learned M'luds from UK, stuffy old codgers who are totally removed from the society, values and mores of the people whom they deem to judge. They freed Abu Bakr after the attempted coup in Trinidad, on the flimsiest of legal technicalities; that the President who signed the "pardon" to free the Prime Minister and dozens of others from the Red House, didn't actually have a gun pointed to HIS head, therefore it could not be ruled as duress. Legal bunkum, the man was clearly under duress! And now Bakr sending Muslims to fight with ISIS, god help T&T when those Jihadist killers come back!

A good legal summary of the arguments at the link below. What does allyu think?

"The Privy Council served as a viable and useful mechanism during the Caribbean’s colonial phase, and even during the infancy of its independent phase. Now, however, CARICOM has provided a more suitable option in the form of the CCJ. Although the court requires Caribbean states to fund and manage their own avenue for appeals, each state gains much from their investment: a regional court with careful checks and balances on its neutrality, a modern and efficient process, reduced costs to litigants, and the creation of a body of Caribbean jurisprudence."


http://www.nowgrenada.com/2016/10/privy … ersus-ccj/


I understand your criticism about making law inaccessible, and I understand that my response might make you say what kind of superior better than us person is writing this.

However I have been privy to many conversations about Attorneys and Judges in the region, and cases that have been processed. Frankly IF I could afford it I would want final judgement to be from a set up where the local old boys network couldn't control the outcome.

Offline

#5 Dec 05, 2017 12:02 pm

New Historian
Active

Re: The Privy Council versus Caribbean Court of Justice

Oh and the UK doesn't have it's own old boy network? They INVENTED the old school tie! Oh please.

Offline

#6 Dec 05, 2017 1:33 pm

gripe
Active

Re: The Privy Council versus Caribbean Court of Justice

New Historian, your criticism of Expat's quest for disinterested jurists to hear cases from the Caribbean does not make sense. Your argument that the UK also has its "old boy network . . ." while true, does not mean that that UK network benefits West Indian litigants. Generally, the old boy favoritisms benefit those within the specific locale. Therefore, it will be a difficult thing for you to prove that the UK "old boy network . . ." one way or the other influences their decisions in cases from Caribbean litigants.

We have to be careful about wholesale application of labels and concepts to situations without careful scrutiny about the specific circumstances.

Last edited by gripe (Dec 05, 2017 1:34 pm)

Offline

#7 Dec 05, 2017 1:39 pm

New Historian
Active

Re: The Privy Council versus Caribbean Court of Justice

So you believe it is best for us to continue seeking ultimate legal redress in London? Last time I checked, most West Indian countries are "independent".

Offline

#8 Dec 05, 2017 4:03 pm

gripe
Active

Re: The Privy Council versus Caribbean Court of Justice

In my last comment I narrowly addressed your "old boy network" flawed response to Expat, but deliberately left out my position on whether the CCJ is a better option for West Indian litigants than the Privy Council. 

I really don't know which appellate forum is better for West Indians. I do know, however, that some of the reasons posited for supporting the need for the CCJ are not persuasive to me. For example:

1. In the article, by Rita Joseph-Olivetti, that you linked in your original post, which provided a comparative assessment of the CCJ and the Privy Council, the author gave this reason for supporting the CCJ:

"And Justice Patrick Robinson of the International Court of Justice in The Hague, a national of Jamaica, had this to say in a lecture, "A Triad of Identity Issues: The Enduring Cry for Freedom and Justice”, . . . "The lawyers and Judges in Jamaica and the Caribbean are well equipped to serve in a final appellate body." He based this on his research which showed that the JCPC allowed about 30% to 40% of appeals from the Jamaica Court of Appeal, the same ratio as that allowed by the UK Supreme Court from the UK court of Appeal."

How does the parity of allowed appeals as above referenced mean that the CCJ will be as competent as the Privy Council? Is that an acceptance that, to the extent those allowed appeals are mostly wrong, that it is also acceptable for Caribbean jurists on the CCJ to have an equal percentage of questionable allowed appeals? I beg to differ and clamour for even better results with greater correctness with the decisions rendered.

2. At least one of the impetus for the CCJ was to do away with the British in our affairs. Yet, it is a fact that "Although CARICOM created the CCJ as a replacement for the privy Council, it did not fully replicate the British system; instead, it chose to copy certain practices while creating other divergent ones." See, Andrew N. Maharaj, "The Caribbean Court of Justice: A Horizontally and vertically Comparative Study of the Caribbean's First Independent and Interdependent Court", 47 Cornell Int'l L.J. 735, 739 (2014). http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/resear … -final.pdf

3. Finally, New Historian, as a direct and further response to your "old boy network" angle, there is the view that:

"Although Caribbean islands now had a voice, a major concern arose regarding the CCJ as a regional body: Caribbean judges would be more susceptible to corruption than the predominantly British judges in the Privy Council." Id, at 741.

Expat was not off the mark!

So, New Historian, again, I am still undecided about whether, at this point at least, the CCJ is better than the Privy Council, or vice versa.

Offline

#9 Dec 05, 2017 7:23 pm

Expat
Active

Re: The Privy Council versus Caribbean Court of Justice

gripe wrote:

In my last comment I narrowly addressed your "old boy network" flawed response to Expat, but deliberately left out my position on whether the CCJ is a better option for West Indian litigants than the Privy Council. 

I really don't know which appellate forum is better for West Indians. I do know, however, that some of the reasons posited for supporting the need for the CCJ are not persuasive to me. For example:

1. In the article, by Rita Joseph-Olivetti, that you linked in your original post, which provided a comparative assessment of the CCJ and the Privy Council, the author gave this reason for supporting the CCJ:

"And Justice Patrick Robinson of the International Court of Justice in The Hague, a national of Jamaica, had this to say in a lecture, "A Triad of Identity Issues: The Enduring Cry for Freedom and Justice”, . . . "The lawyers and Judges in Jamaica and the Caribbean are well equipped to serve in a final appellate body." He based this on his research which showed that the JCPC allowed about 30% to 40% of appeals from the Jamaica Court of Appeal, the same ratio as that allowed by the UK Supreme Court from the UK court of Appeal."

How does the parity of allowed appeals as above referenced mean that the CCJ will be as competent as the Privy Council? Is that an acceptance that, to the extent those allowed appeals are mostly wrong, that it is also acceptable for Caribbean jurists on the CCJ to have an equal percentage of questionable allowed appeals? I beg to differ and clamour for even better results with greater correctness with the decisions rendered.

2. At least one of the impetus for the CCJ was to do away with the British in our affairs. Yet, it is a fact that "Although CARICOM created the CCJ as a replacement for the privy Council, it did not fully replicate the British system; instead, it chose to copy certain practices while creating other divergent ones." See, Andrew N. Maharaj, "The Caribbean Court of Justice: A Horizontally and vertically Comparative Study of the Caribbean's First Independent and Interdependent Court", 47 Cornell Int'l L.J. 735, 739 (2014). http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/resear … -final.pdf

3. Finally, New Historian, as a direct and further response to your "old boy network" angle, there is the view that:

"Although Caribbean islands now had a voice, a major concern arose regarding the CCJ as a regional body: Caribbean judges would be more susceptible to corruption than the predominantly British judges in the Privy Council." Id, at 741.

Expat was not off the mark!

So, New Historian, again, I am still undecided about whether, at this point at least, the CCJ is better than the Privy Council, or vice versa.


What a splendid adjunct to my humble offering.

Offline

#10 Dec 06, 2017 9:38 am

New Historian
Active

Re: The Privy Council versus Caribbean Court of Justice

gripe wrote:

In my last comment I narrowly addressed your "old boy network" flawed response to Expat, but deliberately left out my position on whether the CCJ is a better option for West Indian litigants than the Privy Council. 

I really don't know which appellate forum is better for West Indians. I do know, however, that some of the reasons posited for supporting the need for the CCJ are not persuasive to me. For example:

1. In the article, by Rita Joseph-Olivetti, that you linked in your original post, which provided a comparative assessment of the CCJ and the Privy Council, the author gave this reason for supporting the CCJ:

"And Justice Patrick Robinson of the International Court of Justice in The Hague, a national of Jamaica, had this to say in a lecture, "A Triad of Identity Issues: The Enduring Cry for Freedom and Justice”, . . . "The lawyers and Judges in Jamaica and the Caribbean are well equipped to serve in a final appellate body." He based this on his research which showed that the JCPC allowed about 30% to 40% of appeals from the Jamaica Court of Appeal, the same ratio as that allowed by the UK Supreme Court from the UK court of Appeal."

How does the parity of allowed appeals as above referenced mean that the CCJ will be as competent as the Privy Council? Is that an acceptance that, to the extent those allowed appeals are mostly wrong, that it is also acceptable for Caribbean jurists on the CCJ to have an equal percentage of questionable allowed appeals? I beg to differ and clamour for even better results with greater correctness with the decisions rendered.

2. At least one of the impetus for the CCJ was to do away with the British in our affairs. Yet, it is a fact that "Although CARICOM created the CCJ as a replacement for the privy Council, it did not fully replicate the British system; instead, it chose to copy certain practices while creating other divergent ones." See, Andrew N. Maharaj, "The Caribbean Court of Justice: A Horizontally and vertically Comparative Study of the Caribbean's First Independent and Interdependent Court", 47 Cornell Int'l L.J. 735, 739 (2014). http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/resear … -final.pdf

3. Finally, New Historian, as a direct and further response to your "old boy network" angle, there is the view that:

"Although Caribbean islands now had a voice, a major concern arose regarding the CCJ as a regional body: Caribbean judges would be more susceptible to corruption than the predominantly British judges in the Privy Council." Id, at 741.

Expat was not off the mark!

So, New Historian, again, I am still undecided about whether, at this point at least, the CCJ is better than the Privy Council, or vice versa.

"your "old boy network" flawed response to Expat" I'll let that one pass lol.

"Caribbean judges would be more susceptible to corruption than the predominantly British judges in the Privy Council" But I won't let this one pass! Insulting, sad, and just plain wrong. This kind of comment is common parlance, and the sad part that it is equally common here in the Caribbean. I'm not saying our judges are lily-white, but they are far, far from the the level of corruption that you are accusing them of. You obviously believe that no such corruption exists in Britain, what a foolish opinion - are you really that naieve? The corruption in the rich countries is just better hidden than in the third world - they're just better at it! Moreover, first world corruption is "legal" - look at the Paradise papers, tax evasion on a massive scale. The American political system, where money buys power - that's not corruption? Oh please, compared to that lot, we're babes in the woods at corruption.

Like I wrote last year:

The South African arms scandal of 1999 severely damaged the ruling ANC government and nearly brought down future president Jacob Zuma. But in France, the country that paid the bribes, the scandal went virtually unnoticed. If it takes two to tango, how come only one of them gets to be corrupt? What about the corruptor, isn’t he just as guilty as the corrupted? Not in France apparently, where corruption is regarded as one of the nobler arts of French statecraft. Corruption in France’s dealings with its ex-colonies is explicitly practiced and implicitly encouraged – it is, quite simply, how France “does the business”.

The French arms company at the heart of the South African arms scandal, Thales, has a long history of complicity in overseas bribery scandals from Taiwan to Saudi Arabia; yet remains immune from prosecution in its home country. France is one of the world’s largest arms exporters, a global industry famous for shady characters, front companies and bribes. Yet France was ranked by Transparency International as the 26th cleanest country in the world in 2014; a lot cleaner than the countries it corrupts, evidently.

In 2001 a former employee of BAE Systems, a British arms manufacturer, notified the Serious Fraud Office that BAE held an alleged £60 million slush fund to bribe members of the Saudi royal family to secure £43 billion dollar deal to sell Saudi Arabia 72 Eurofighter Typhoon warplanes.  No action was taken. Three years later the story blew wide open when the BBC broadcast an in-depth story, including interviews with former BAE insiders giving details on how the arms company paid bribes to Saudi middlemen. Public uproar forced the British government to launch an investigation into the scandal, however it was a sham; in 2006, the government announced that the investigation was being discontinued “on grounds of the public interest”. This wasn’t the end of BAE’s corruption troubles; they were subsequently found guilty in a bribery case in Tanzania and ordered to repay reparations of £29.5m to the Tanzanian people.

Despite these and several other famously proven cases of overseas corruption, Britain like France enjoys a stellar rating in the international corruption stakes, ranking 25th cleanest out of 178 countries worldwide. In the meantime Tanzania, the country that accepted BAE’s generous “gifts” languishes in 116th position.

Do I smell a double standard here?



https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 … ranglehold

"Many politicians are on the payroll of private businesses; along with civil servants, they end up working for companies interested in their policy areas, allowing them to profit from their public service – something that gives them a vested interest in an ideology that furthers corporate interests. The business world benefits from the politicians' and civil servants' contacts, as well as an understanding of government structures and experience, allowing private firms to navigate their way to the very heart of power."

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB