Talk:Caribbean Court of Justice
|WikiProject Caribbean||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Trinidad and Tobago||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Law||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
I profoundly disagree with the following paragraph in the article on the CCJ.
“Controversy surrounding the establishment of this court, correspond to two main events that made the Privy Council unpopular in the Caribbean region. One reason, was the refusal of the Privy Council to allow capital punishment for person convicted of murder to be practiced in Caribbean states, even with majority support by the populous in the jurisdiction. , ,  The second main issue was a case involving the government of Antigua and Barbuda, where the Privy Council handed out a radio license to a company on behalf of the forementioned government without approval or consent. The British based court has been perceived as having too much power in the Caribbean region. Several politicians also lamented that the Caribbean nations are the only remaining region of the old British Empire still to rely on the British court system for appeals.”
The question that needs to be asked is "unpopular with whom?"
As a lawyer and public opinion pollster practicing in Antigua, I can say most assuredly that the decision by the Privy Council to award a license to Observer Radio was an overwhelmingly popular decision. In fact, it is because of the Observer Radio decision (and others involving constitutional rights) that many Antiguans and Barbudans (and I would say by extension others in the region) are leery of the CCJ.
On another point, I am not that convinced that the Privy Council's stand on the death penalty is all that unpopular in the region. All that the Privy Council has been say is that the death penalty is not automatic in murder cases and that if the capital punishment is to be done it must be done within and a reasonable time.
I can cite case after case which justifies the sentiment that the Privy Council is delivering the kind of justice in the field of human rights that may vanish with the advent of CCJ. Take for example the very recent case out of Jamaica of Ricardo Williams v The Queen. In that case the Jamaican courts held that a life sentence for a young man who allegedly committed murder at age 12 was justice. Young Mr Williams had always maintained that he was mistreated whilst in custody and that his supposed confession were obtained under those circumstances. The trial judge attached not one iota of credibility to Mr Williams’ allegations. It was simply astonishing (in my view) on the part of the judge. The literacy of Mr Williams was very much in doubt. Apparently Mr Williams’ parents were not even made aware that their young son was in custody.
Allegedly that murder occurred in 1994. The Privy Council upon hearing the case set aside the conviction and stated that in the circumstances a retrial would not be appropriate. Mr Williams is now 24. Twelve years of his life has been spent behind bars. What a tragedy.
David Dorsett, Ph.D.
I entirely agree with you. This article, as it currently stands, ought to be marked as lacking a neutral point of view.Ncox 00:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Concerning Neutrality 
Feel free to re-write it..... There are a number of articles talking-down about the Privy Council. Esp. surrounding the 1990 Coup in Trinidad where the Privy Council gave the Al-Jamaat amnesty etc.
A five minute look around just using the words "Coup 1990 Privy Council". and "CCJ Privy Council Death penalty" using google.
CaribDigita 19:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)