Boyne out of his depth on law
THE EDITOR, Sir:
There seems to be a growing national practice for Jamaicans to comment on every issue, even when debaters have weak arguments. Ian Boyne, in his column ('Go Forte with tough measures') in The Sunday Gleaner published on July 10,2016, suggested that defence lawyers need to be challenged philosophically. However, Mr Boyne's first attempt was nothing short of an awful failure.
It is paradoxical to enforce laws and justice by breaching the very fundamental concepts of the rule of law. According to Section 2 of the Jamaican Constitution, no law shall be inconsistent with the provisions of the said Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of Jamaica, and we must get into the habit of complying with the laws of the land if we are to become a law-abiding nation.
On the international scene, the constitutions of countries have been accepted as the supreme legal instrument. In Hinds v R, the Privy Council declared portions of the Gun Court Act of Jamaica as unconstitutional because it conflicted with the provisions of the Constitution of Jamaica.
Ian Boyne will have to be appointed as a QC when he finishes challenging all these principles and the concept of stare decisis! I wish him philosophical luck!
From a common-sense perspective, Ian Boyne is still lagging behind. Mr Boyne made reference to pronouncements made by the minister of national security claiming that 134 persons charged have murdered while on bail.
Mr Boyne's common sense is rather gullible! It would be more sensible to speak of convictions, since the legal philosophy emanating from the case of Woolmington v DPP postulated the presumption of innocence for an accused.
You cannot challenge from a philosophical context if you are not conversant with the relevant philosophies.
UTech Law Student