Justice in any society is paramount. That is why the judicial system forms one of the main pillars of any law-abiding country.
Indeed, this sentiment is solidified by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which was proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in Paris on December 10, 1948. The Declaration is “a common standard of achievements for all peoples and all nations. It sets the fundamental human rights to be universally protected.”
As it relates to justice and the law, the Declaration states, in Article 6, that “everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law”.
“All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law,” Article 7 states.
The information above is not new. This topic of swift justice is also not new, but there are some issues that must be spoken and written about until those in authority are listening.
Barbados, a country which will be celebrating 54 years of Independence in just under three weeks, has subscribed to the view that justice is paramount. There are clear avenues for an aggrieved person to seek legal recourse. Likewise, there is legislation that provides for punishment for those who break the law.
Our issue is not what, in theory, the country believes or strives to uphold. Our issue remains the execution and pace of justice.
Time and time again, Chief Justice after Chief Justice, Attorney General after Attorney General, Director of Public Prosecutions after Director of Public Prosecutions, judge after judge, Commissioner of Police after Commissioner of Police, BAR president after BAR president, have spoken about the backlog of cases in the court system. They have said how the backlog is affecting them in their various capacities.
Those with the power to change it have promised time and time again to address the decades-old challenge.
There has been talk about modernising the court system. But even with the building and opening of the Barbados Supreme Court Complex at Whitepark Road, St Michael on June 10, 2009, which has the capacity to hear cases remotely, the wheels of justice are still moving at snail’s pace.
Last Wednesday, we reported on a 17-year-old rape case. From every possible angle we examine this unfortunate situation, we find it to be wrong. It is wrong that a victim, who alleged being raped at age 13, is now taking the stand at age 30. It is wrong that she has to relive the details of the ordeal at this stage when she should have healed emotionally and mentally.
It is wrong that a 15-year-old teen had to function for 17 years of his life with a rape charge looming over him. It is wrong that both the prosecution and defence lawyers must now present “solid” arguments when initial statements and evidence were prepared almost two decades ago.
It is wrong that the investigating police officers, who are more than likely working on plenty other cases, must cast their memories back 17 years in order to help the prosecution present its case. It is very possible that some key pieces of evidence might have been compromised after 17 years, whether in the favour of the accused or the accuser. And this too is wrong. Persons material to the prosecution or defence might also have passed on.
What is also wrong is that we know rape carries with it a level of intrigue and stigma. So, as the story was reported, not only did readers berate the justice system but also the girl, now a woman. She was held up to ridicule because of perceived inconsistencies in the story. This is very unfortunate given the circumstances.
Ironically, the UN also speaks specifically as it relates to justice for minors in the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
It states in Article 40, in part:
“States Parties recognise the right of every child alleged as, accused of, or recognised as having infringed the penal law to be treated in a manner consistent with the promotion of the child’s sense of dignity and worth, which reinforces the child’s respect for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of others and which takes into account the child’s age and the desirability of promoting the child’s reintegration and the child’s assuming a constructive role in society.
To this end, and having regard to the relevant provisions of international instruments, States Parties shall, in particular, ensure that, inter alia:
(ii) To be informed promptly and directly of the charges against him or her, and, if appropriate, through his or her parents or legal guardians, and to have legal or other appropriate assistance in the preparation and presentation of his or her defence;
(iii) To have the matter determined without delay by a competent, independent and impartial authority or judicial body in a fair hearing according to law, in the presence of legal or other appropriate assistance and, unless it is considered not to be in the best interest of the child, in particular, taking into account his or her age or situation, his or her parents or legal guardians. . . .”
But our position and passion for a faster justice system go for all cases. From civil matters to criminal matters, we are equally concerned: from land disputes, labour issues, divorces and property battles, to rapes, murders, assaults, burglaries and robberies. In any category of grievance, offence, or crime, all accusers and accused have the right to be heard and the reasonable expectation of swift justice.
