Im­me­di­ate past pres­i­dent of the Law As­so­ci­a­tion, Sophia Chote, is call­ing for the pub­lic to be con­sult­ed be­fore mov­ing fur­ther with judge-on­ly tri­als.

“In­stead of rush­ing to leg­isla­tive so­lu­tions, I think, per­haps, there needs to be a greater con­nec­tion with what cit­i­zens ac­tu­al­ly think about a piece of leg­is­la­tion which is go­ing to fun­da­men­tal­ly af­fect their lives in many ways and af­fect the sys­tem of jus­tice which im­pacts on their lives,” Chote told Guardian Me­dia yes­ter­day.

“I think there needs to be a con­sul­ta­tive process with the cit­i­zens of Trinidad and To­ba­go with re­spect to this is­sue be­fore any leg­is­la­tion is pro­mul­gat­ed in par­lia­ment.”

Mean­while, the Pres­i­dent of the As­sem­bly of South­ern Lawyers, Michael Rooplal, said they were not con­sult­ed on the pro­posed bill. In fact, with a bill of this na­ture, con­sul­ta­tions are a must.

“It is my view that leg­is­la­tion, such as the sub­ject bill, which pro­pos­es to make such wide-rang­ing changes to the crim­i­nal jus­tice sys­tem, ought to be the sub­ject of wide-rang­ing con­sul­ta­tions with all stake­hold­ers ... The bill pro­pos­es to make changes to the way crim­i­nal jus­tice is ad­min­is­tered in Trinidad and To­ba­go, par­tic­u­lar­ly with the re­duc­tion of ju­rors and the in­tro­duc­tion of lay as­ses­sors. Such sweep­ing changes should not be made with­out thor­ough analy­sis and an op­por­tu­ni­ty to be heard by all stake­hold­ers,” he said.

“In the premis­es, I be­lieve that the bill ought to be re­mit­ted to a Joint Se­lect Com­mit­tee so that fur­ther con­sul­ta­tion may take place.”

President of the Assembly of Southern Lawyers Michael Rooplal

RISHI RAGOONATH

While there is cur­rent­ly the op­tion to have judge-on­ly tri­als, it can on­ly be done via re­quest. Chote said she be­lieves there should not be any move to make the de­fault tri­al for­mat judge-on­ly.

“I agree with that and I know the as­so­ci­a­tion of which I am a part (the Law As­so­ci­a­tion), al­so takes that po­si­tion,” Chote added.

With over 15,132 cas­es pend­ing in the crim­i­nal jus­tice sys­tem, At­tor­ney Gen­er­al Regi­nald Ar­mour and the Gov­ern­ment are hop­ing that switch­ing to the judge-on­ly for­mat will help de­clut­ter the sys­tem by ex­pe­dit­ing con­vic­tions.

Speak­ing in Par­lia­ment last week, Ar­mour not­ed that find­ing ju­rors posed a sig­nif­i­cant chal­lenge as peo­ple were of­ten mak­ing ex­cus­es to get out of ju­ry du­ty.

How­ev­er, con­cerns have been raised in dif­fer­ent quar­ters. In a re­lease, the head of the Crim­i­nal Bar As­so­ci­a­tion (CBA), Is­rael Khan, de­scribed the move as “quite clear­ly an­oth­er piece­meal ero­sion of fair tri­al pro­tec­tions guar­an­teed to cit­i­zens ac­cused of crim­i­nal con­duct.”

He said, “The Crim­i­nal Bar As­so­ci­a­tion with grave con­cern has re­flect­ed on the stat­ed in­tent of for­mer at­tor­ney gen­er­al Faris Al-Rawi to even­tu­al­ly re­move tri­al by ju­ry en­tire­ly when he pi­lot­ed the tri­al by Judge Alone (2017) Bill. The right to be tried by a ju­ry of one’s peers is a Pal­la­di­um which our cit­i­zens in­her­it­ed and en­joyed af­ter we be­came a British Colony and al­lowed cit­i­zens to ben­e­fit from the spir­it of the Magna Car­ta Of 1215.

“At present, per­sons ac­cused of se­ri­ous crimes are en­ti­tled as of right to tri­al by ju­ry as the stan­dard of fair­ness in in­dictable tri­als. The 2023 bill re­moves the en­ti­tle­ment of tri­al by judge and ju­ry which will be rel­e­gat­ed to a mere op­tion and even­tu­al­ly to fur­ther in­cur­sions by the At­tor­ney Gen­er­al.”

Min­is­ter in the Min­istry of the At­tor­ney Gen­er­al Renu­ka Sagram­s­ingh-Sook­lal al­so ex­plained the high costs as­so­ci­at­ed with ju­ry tri­als. In­de­pen­dent Sen­a­tor Evans Welch, mean­while, said, “These mat­ters can’t take prece­dence over fair­ness and jus­tice.” He al­so ex­pressed con­cern that the bill will even­tu­al­ly lead to ju­ry tri­als be­com­ing ex­tinct.