Consultation on Reform of Justice System Held in Portland

The last in the series of 22 public consultations on reform of the Jamaican justice system was held at the Old Marina in Port Antonio on Tuesday, April 17.
They were held across the country to engage members of the public, as well as key justice system stakeholders to gather information on the problems, concerns and opportunities facing the justice system in Jamaica.
Among those in attendance were justices of the peace, members of the Jamaica Constabulary Force (JCF), representatives of various business and civic organizations in Portland and members of the general public.
Included in the matters discussed were delays in the trial of court cases, the need to improve the operation of the Children’s Court, the appropriate mode of attire in court, mediation training for Justices of the Peace (JPs) and other court officials, the importance of restorative justice, the appropriate sentencing for particular crimes, and the need to improve the condition of court houses.
The feedback from the meeting will be used to identify reform options and strategies for implementation in the justice reform process.
Addressing the function, Peter Parchment, Project Manager for the Jamaica Justice Reform, said the objective of the reform process was to make the justice system operate more efficiently and satisfactorily for the people of the country.
He said the review process would last for nine months, having started in October of 2006. It is scheduled to be completed in June 2007, he noted, adding that its major focus would be the operation of the court system, and ways in which that aspect of the justice system could be improved.
Mr. Parchment urged the gathering to take the consultation seriously and voice their concerns and recommendations for the improvement of the system. Responding to concerns about the seeming inconsistencies in respect of the sentencing of persons found guilty of some criminal activities, and the long delays experienced in the trial of some cases, Justice Seymour Panton, Appeal Court Judge, explained that the difference in sentencing often resulted from the fact that each of the cases involved is associated with different circumstances, which in turn caused the variations in the punishment handed down by the court.
Noting that this would always be the case where punishment was not mandatory, Mr. Panton said where members of the public believe there should be types of punishments by the court for certain offences, they should lobby their Members of Parliament to make the necessary legislation to make such punishment mandatory.