Orville Taylor | Natural justice again?

If lawyers cannot get it right; then how can we truly safeguard the administration of justice in this country? Monday was the end of Workers’ Week and the celebration of Labour Day. Activities included an amazing symposium, celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Industrial Disputes Tribunal. The handiwork of my colleagues from the Ministry of Labour, the Tribunal and the Mona School of Business and Management, of the University of the West Indies Mona campus, it was a historic event.

For me, it was a Sankofa moment. Returning to my incubator, the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, it was sheer joy to be in the same space with the ‘who's who’ of industrial relations, including stalwarts and a few ‘neophytes,’ who sometime make that last syllable an eponym.

Outside of gatherings sponsored by the International Labour Organisation, this might have been singularly the largest meeting of the best minds in Jamaican industrial relations that exists today. We were also very blessed to have former justice in the Trinidad and Tobago Industrial court, Justice Deborah Thomas-Felix who has written one of the most authoritative sources of labour law which passes both academic and practical scrutiny.

Without question, anyone who cares about the country, the maintenance of industrial peace, decent work and productivity, as well as the avoidance of social pathologies, should be encouraged that we had such a meeting of minds. Of course, there were few dissenters and a number of individuals, who went out on branches and made statements that at least were provocative, if not controversial.

In my commentary last week, I ended on the note that procedural rules are inviolable and under no circumstance should anyone, interested in the administration of justice, consider rules of engagement and legal guidelines as simply encumbrances.

The problem is, that even persons with the highest morals and love of decency, have to fight against individual biases and personal interests; because taking the place of another is easy to do verbally but extremely difficult to carry out. This is actually why Christianity is such a difficult endeavour, although most persons who call themselves by the noun, miss it that this is the most fundamental canon.

Right is right! And those trained in law should know this like the lines in their open palms and not like the back of their selfishly clenched fists.

I carry no brief for Isat Buchanan, or for any man at all. However, it is deeply disturbing that the General Legal Council (GLC) had its judgment against him overturned by the Court of Appeal, not necessarily on the substance of the offence for which he was convicted, but because the wrong procedures were used.

Now, this rides my chest like Sunday’s rice and peas eaten on a Wednesday. First of all, the GLC certainly has written rules and guidelines, which are as binding as improperly serviced brakes.

Beyond that, even those who learn law by diffusion from their consorts, friends, or associates, have a working knowledge of the principles of natural justice. Be not mistaken, in the opinion of reasonable women, his comments regarding the former Director of Public Prosecutions, that led to the charges were are best, unnecessary, unwise and indelicate.  In fact, he as an attorney, found it prudent to plead guilty to the charges. Whatever prodded him to appeal, is his business. Fact is, he won.

Yet, inasmuch as the matter is now settled and the entire story is now exposing its underbelly, there is a more primordial issue for me beyond the failure to follow procedure.

Maybe one requires another kind of mind to understand or accept, what seems repulsive to me and any sense of decency and fairness.  However, my belief is that there is something essentially wrong with having practicing defence attorneys be in a position to adjudicate over the professional future of their direct competitors.

In this labour surplus law market, where there is a plethora of lawyers produced annually, but a dearth in the more needed math, English and early childhood teachers, there is every chance that the elite senior counsels, now willing to work like ‘Hallibutton’, have at least a latent desire to see some of their competitors eliminated.

In my less than humble opinion; no attorney, who is active in the same market, should ever be a judge in the cause of his potential rival. For me, it is no different from high court judges being enjoined from practicing as attorneys on retirement, because they clearly are in a position to benefit from the laws they themselves shaped.

Speaking of ‘Hallibutton’, a recent judicial decision circumscribes the Halliburton lessons regarding conflicts of interest. My plantation, the University of the West Indies, has a Statement of Ethical Principles and Code of Conduct which delineates, potential, actual and perceived conflicts of interest. These, if not addressed, militate against justice.

When academics do it, we can barely plead ignorance. When lawyers do it, it is reprehensible.

Still, as I said in a previous column, the practice of law in Jamaica is possibly built on a biased foundation.

Hiding behind The Treaty of Chaguaramas, the law schools give preferential treatment to graduates of UWI when processing applications for admission.

Then when they graduate and become King’s Counsel (KC), their cases are called up earlier, simply because of these two letters, which are so desirable that alumni of Jamaica College and Calabar and some pro-republic Jamaicans, hug it up like a reassuring wife.

Of course, many will not agree with these criticism, because they benefit and have never worn the shoes of the other.

However, fairness is not a toilet seat; I pledged to “stand up for justice, brotherhood and peace.”

Orville Taylor is senior lecturer at Department of Sociology at The University of the West Indies, a radio talk-show host, and author of ‘Broken Promises, Hearts and Pockets’. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and tayloronblackline@hotmail.com