Last year, in an article, Rowley's abdication strategy:, I pointed to the Prime Minister pursuing a surreptitious abdication of responsibility when, at a People's National Movement (PNM) forum in San Fernando, he again pointed fingers at the police service for the horrifying murder rate, saying it is their responsibility to deal with crime, implying his Government had little to do with it, that he could just let the police do their job, fail or succeed, whilst he and his Cabinet get on with less troublesome matters. And go on holiday, of course. <\/p>\n
I asked then, if the police alone is responsible, why have we had a minister of national security since independence, with responsibility for the general policy of his ministry which includes, as the most substantial component, a modern, well-equipped, proficient police service? And why do we have a National Security Council chaired by the Prime Minister himself? This abdication strategy will not work. The buck stops with you, Prime Minister, not the police service. <\/p>\n
I am therefore pleased Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj SC, former attorney general, has spoken strongly on the issue, saying: The law enforcement agencies do not go up for elections. No government can therefore use, as a defence, if there is an upsurge in crime, to say it is the job of the police and for the government to wash its hands. The electorate did not elect the Commissioner of Police or the law enforcement agencies. The electorate elected the government. The government therefore has a legal and political responsibility to see the Police Service can deal with crime. The buck stops with the government. Right, Ramesh, right! <\/p>\n
It seems some awareness is seeping through the density of this administration. Last week national security minister Edmund Dillon finally accepted the government's role, saying his administration fully understands the electorate has charged us with that responsibility. We will do all that is required. Can we expect action after one and a half years, 715 murders and counting? <\/p>\n
But effective policing alone will not ensure the rule of law. We must also repair the shambolic administration of justice. Faris Al-Rawi, Attorney General, has brought two bills, one providing for trial by judge instead of jury, the other to abolish preliminary inquiries (PI) in criminal cases. But strong objections have come from DPP Roger Gaspard SC, Pamela Elder SC, Peter Pursglove SC and Maharaj SC, all not persuaded the bills would reduce the court backlog. Gaspard says abolition of PI would transfer delays from the Magistrate Court to the High Court, worsening the situation; Elder has called the bill fundamentally flawed and a compilation of legislative babble; and Maharaj says trial by judge alone would aggravate delays by placing additional burdens on High Court judges. All have called for withdrawal of the bills and more consultations, a view supported by former chief justice Sat Sharma. <\/p>\n
But, where is the current CJ, Ivor Archie in all this? Away for almost one month to deliver a speech in Australia! The man is holding to his promise made at the opening of this law term , after which, in an article, Chief Joker', I said , Archie was self-satisfied, arrogant and dismissive , comparing himself to an eagle, saying he would flap his wings and fly the world as much as he wants, instead of spending more time at home, attending to the administration of justice, which at its present rate would take 20 years to clear the present backlog according to Attorney Brent Winter who says we are sitting on a ticking time bomb. <\/p>\n
Pursglove, a constitutional expert who has worked with this and other countries in improving justice delivery, thinks Archie should have been here to air his views. He praised co-operation from Michael de la Bastide, as CJ, and expressed doubt such co-operation exists today. Pursglove feels the country has to address the real issue: delays in the High Court and the Court of Appeal. Why does the judiciary take so long to deal with matters? Are so many delays allowed because counsel in Trinidad get away with many things in delaying cases that in other jurisdictions they would not get away with? And what are the CJ's answers to these questions? <\/p>\n
Ramesh Maharaj has already made several recommendations to unclog the courts. He called on Archie to establish a task force to monitor speedy hearing of criminal cases, determine these cases in the magistrate courts within six months and in the High Court within a year. Part of an eight-point plan, including a DNA bank; temporary magistrates and temporary judges; plea bargaining and additional courts; a supervisory unit to oversee the justice system and improve the witness protection programme; a case management system in the magistrates court where a clerk of the peace and his administrative staff can be involved in adjournment of cases, visiting prisons with the magistrate, eliminating the transportation of prisoners all over the country. And regarding indictable matters, where notes of evidence in the magistrate courts are not being sent to the DPP's Office, Maharaj said the CJ, Attorney General and DPP should get the necessary resources from the government for a special task force to have these notes prepared and sent within two months. <\/p>\n
These are practical, workable solutions, demanding collaboration between the executive and the judiciary, Rowley\/Al-Rawi and Ivor Archie. But the nation has heard of no discussions between them on the administration of justice in one year and a half, a damning indictment on both whilst, according to Brent Winter, the criminal justice system is teetering on the brink of collapse! Last week, Ramesh Maharaj warned there is a high risk the rule of law would be overthrown and the country would become ungovernable. Those in charge should listen. Ramesh is right! <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Originally posted here: <\/p>\n
Right, Ramesh - Trinidad & Tobago Express<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Last year, in an article, Rowley's abdication strategy:, I pointed to the Prime Minister pursuing a surreptitious abdication of responsibility when, at a People's National Movement (PNM) forum in San Fernando, he again pointed fingers at the police service for the horrifying murder rate, saying it is their responsibility to deal with crime, implying his Government had little to do with it, that he could just let the police do their job, fail or succeed, whilst he and his Cabinet get on with less troublesome matters. And go on holiday, of course. I asked then, if the police alone is responsible, why have we had a minister of national security since independence, with responsibility for the general policy of his ministry which includes, as the most substantial component, a modern, well-equipped, proficient police service Continue reading