Chief Justice Sir Patterson Cheltenham is “deeply troubled” with the quality of courses being offered to law students at the Cave Hill Campus of the University of the West Indies (UWI).
Giving “a hard-nosed report on what is happening up on the hill”, he pointed out that many potential lawyers were electing to take “soft” courses and avoid the harder ones that would, he explained, make them more effective at the Bar.
He said this was troubling “for the future development of the country”.
“What I will tell you is that LLB (Bachelor of Laws) programme is populated with a lot of super soft options to get people over to the Bar to say they have an LLB, but they are not rigorous enough. The programme lacks that analytical rigour which people like myself had to go through to give you the comfort that when you have to select from those who say they are graduates, you are bringing at the serious levels – Attorney General, Solicitor General, the Registrar, judges of the High Court, Masters of the High Court; that is why it is such a serious matter,” he said.
He made the comments as he, Justice Margaret Reifer, and Justice William Chandler continued to hear submissions in the matter of Lamar Antonio Jones vs the Attorney General in the Court of Appeal – a challenge to the Bail (Amendment) Act.
Agreeing with the Chief Justice’s concerns about courses at UWI, Justice Reifer said it was clear that attorneys who had graduated in recent times had not had the same level of training, noting that some, when asked to quote their sources, pointed to the search engine Google.
Sir Patterson replied, “And this is what troubles us at the other bench – what is filtering out. I am not worried about the law school. Long before you get to law school, you have to come with an LLB, and I think the law school should be audited as to where these people with the LLBs come from and not give them any direct entry because they have an LLB. You should look at what is the content of an LLB, and where persons have elected to do soft options, you should say to them, ‘Sorry, for a professional course, you have to go back to Cave Hill or wherever and do the following courses and come with a minimum grade of ‘so and so’.’ If we are serious, this is what we have to do. If we want to be the laughingstock, we will continue on this path.”
In the case before the appeals panel, the Attorney General’s Office is disputing a 2021 decision by Madam Justice Shona Griffith in a case that challenged the constitutionality of Section 5(a) of the Bail (Amendment) Act 2019, which forced the courts to remand persons charged with murder or serious firearm offences for 24 months before they can qualify for bail.
Jones had been released on bail in May 2021 after having been on remand at Dodds for 17 months in connection with matters under the Firearms Act. He had approached the High Court claiming that the amendment to the Bail Act was unconstitutional and infringed on six of his rights as an accused person.
According to the legislation, a person charged with murder, treason, high treason or an offence under the Firearms Act, Cap. 179, which is punishable with imprisonment for ten years or more, shall not be granted bail unless a period of 24 months has expired after that person was charged.
Senior Counsel Leslie Haynes, along with Sir Elliot Mottley, Deputy Solicitor General Marsha Lougheed and attorneys Noah Haynes and Kashawn Wood, are representing the Attorney General’s Office in the matter and on Friday offered their response to submissions made by Jones’ legal team led by Senior Counsel Larry Smith.
