Thursday | September 28, 2000
Home Page
Lead Stories
News
Business
Sport
Commentary
Letters
Entertainment
Cornwall Edition
What's Cooking
Star Page

E-Financial Gleaner

Subscribe
Classifieds
Guest Book
Submit Letter
The Gleaner Co.
Advertising
Search

Go-Shopping
Question
Business Directory
Free Mail
Overseas Gleaner & Star
Kingston Live - Via Go-Jamaica's Web Cam atop the Gleaner Building, Down Town, Kingston
Discover Jamaica
Go-Chat
Go-Jamaica Screen Savers
Inns of Jamaica
Personals
Find a Jamaican
5-day Weather Forecast
Book A Vacation
Search the Web!

An attack on the legal profession

THE EDITOR, Madam:

ON THE question of the death penalty, the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister have been obviously correctly advised legally that under Section 17(2) of the Constitution the death penalty is preserved as not being inconsistent with the Constitution. However, I am moved to write this note because I am a member of the Legal Profession (Attorneys-at-law and Judges) because the Leader of the Opposition has suggested that members of my profession may be manipulated by the Prime Minister to violate fundamental human rights.

The members of my profession are principally bound to uphold the law and attorneys-at-law are enjoined by their ethics to assist the judges in the due administration of the law. Let me quote from the decision of the Court of Appeal in the United Kingdom this year (Locabail (U.K.) Ltd. v. Bayfield Properties Ltd. (2000) 2 W.L.R. 870) adopting a decision of the Court of Appeal of South Africa last year (President of the Republic of South Africa v. South African Rugby Football Union, 1999 (4) S.A. 147 at 177) in which the following was said:-

"The question is whether a reasonable, objective and informed person would on the correct facts reasonably apprehend that the judge has not or will not bring an impartial mind to bear on the adjudication of the case, that is a mind open to persuasion by the evidence and the submissions of counsel. The reasonableness of the apprehension must be assessed in the light of the oath of office taken by the judges to administer justice without fear or favour; and their ability to carry out that oath by reason of their training and experience. It must be assumed that they can disabuse their minds of any irrelevant personal beliefs or predispositions".

For the Leader of the Opposition to suggest that members of the Legal Profession even before appointed or when appointed, to the proposed Caribbean Court of Justice, may not be true to the oaths of their office, because they would be manipulated by the Prime Minister, is a very serious attack on my profession and I trust that his legal advisers will confirm this to him.

I am, etc.,

BERTHAN MACAULAY,

Q.C., M.A. LLB

Barrister & Attorney-at-Law,

Legal Consultant,

28 Duke Street, P.O. Box 576,

Kingston.

Back to Letters


©Copyright 2000 Gleaner Company Ltd. | Disclaimer | Letters to the Editor | Suggestions