Former UN judge says call for reform of chief justice's role principled, not reaction to appeal court ruling

Former United Nations judge Patrick Robinson says his call to reform the office of chief justice is principled and was not a reaction to last month’s Court of Appeal ruling overturning a murder conviction presided over by current officeholder Justice Bryan Sykes.

"I was not aware of the [2025] Court of Appeal judgement that overruled a murder conviction in which the trial judge was Chief Justice Sykes. My position, which is one of principle, is that the chief justice, as the chief judge in Jamaica, should sit in the highest court in Jamaica, which is the Court of Appeal, not the Supreme Court," he said.

The former president of the UN International Criminal Tribunal and former judge of the International Court of Justice said a Gleaner January 7 report on his proposal was a “complete misrepresentation" of the last paragraph of his opinion piece published in The Sunday Gleaner on January 4.

The last paragraph of the January 4 opinion piece stated:

"We must put an end to the legal oddity of the possibility of a decision of the chief justice being overturned by the Court of Appeal. The chief justice is the chief judge of Jamaica and is, therefore, chief among all judges, including those in the Court of Appeal. It should not be possible for a Jamaican court to overturn a decision of the chief justice. On appointment, the chief justice should sit in the Court of Appeal as its president. Any amending legislation should take into account regional practice. Of course, judgements of the Court of Appeal may be overturned by Jamaica’s highest court, which at this time is the United Kingdom Privy Council – another legal oddity of which we need to rid ourselves."

Under Jamaica’s Constitution, the chief justice heads the judiciary but sits in the Supreme Court, below the Court of Appeal. While designated a member of the appellate court, the chief justice cannot sit there unless invited and unless four other judges are sitting.

In their December 12 judgment, appeal judges Jennifer Straw, Nicole Foster-Pusey, and Vivene Harris overturned the conviction of Conroy Stephenson for the 2014 murder of Nicholi Nesbeth and entered a verdict of acquittal. The trial was in 2019.

While the jury’s verdict was not “palpably wrong” based on the evidence, the appellate court concluded that Sykes’ “excessive cross-examination” of defence witnesses went far beyond clarification, effectively inviting the jury to disbelieve the defence.

"The applicant was denied a fair trial," the court concluded.

Sykes was appointed chief justice in 2018.

Judge Patrick Robinson's Full Response

I am obliged to respond to the on-line story of the 7th January, 2026, which has a side note, “former UN Judge urges reform, says ‘it should not be possible for Jamaican Court to overturn a Chief Justice’”. The writer sates that I have called for “constitutional reform to prevent Jamaican courts from overturning a chief justice’s ruling. It follows the Court of Appeal appeal’s decision to quash a 2019 murder conviction after ruling that actions of Chief Justice Brian Sykes denied the then accused man a fair trial”.

This is a complete misrepresentation of the last paragraph of the article, published January 4, 2026, captioned, “Analysing Common Law Adversarial and Civil Law Inquisitorial Legal System”.

There are three key sentences in that paragraph: “The Chief Justice is the chief judge of Jamaica and is, therefore, chief among all judges, including those in the Court of Appeal. It should not be possible for a Jamaican court to overturn a decision of the chief justice. On appointment, the chief justice should sit in the Court of Appeal as its president”. When these three sentences are read together, it is crystal clear that what I am saying is that if the chief justice takes what I consider to be his rightful place in the Court of Appeal as its president, it would not be possible for any Jamaican court to overrule him or her, although, of course - and this is acknowledged in the last sentence of the paragraph - the Court of Appeal can be overruled by what is now our highest Court, the United Kingdom Privy Council, a position that I hope will change soon.

In Barbados the chief justice is ex-officio a judge of the High Court, but sits in the Court of Appeal as its president. The position is the same in Trinidad and Tobago. In fact, my information is that in CARICOM it is only the Bahamas that has a structure similar to ours, in which the Chief Justice sits in the Supreme Court, where of course, he or she can be overruled by the Court of Appeal.

I was not aware of the 2019 Court of Appeal judgement that overruled a murder conviction in which the trial judge was Chief Justice Sykes. My position, which is one of principle, is that the chief justice, as the chief judge in Jamaica, should sit in the highest court in Jamaica which is the Court of Appeal, not the Supreme Court.

I also wish to clarify that in the last paragraph of my article I addressed the office of chief justice, and not any specific holder of that office.

In sum, the writer of the on-line comment fell into error by focusing on one sentence in the paragraph to the exclusion of reading the paragraph as a whole, in particular, sentence that on appointment, the chief justice should sit in the Court of Appeal.

Follow The Gleaner on X, formerly Twitter, and Instagram @JamaicaGleaner and on Facebook @GleanerJamaica. Send us a message on WhatsApp at 1-876-499-0169 or email us at onlinefeedback@gleanerjm.com or editors@gleanerjm.com