KINGSTON, Jamaica, CMC – The Jamaican Bar Association (JAMBAR) says media organizations should consider following “established procedures” in their quest for a High Court judge to immediately reverse her decision to bar the media and members of the public from the proceedings in the high profile murder case involving a former opposition legislator.
Last Thursday, Justice Vinette Graham-Allen told reporters and family members that no permission would be granted to cover the trial of Jolyan Silvera, who has been charged with the murder of his wife, Melissa. Silvera is due to return to court on February 8 this year.
However, the Press Association of Jamaica (PAJ) and the Media Association of Jamaica (MAJ) are calling for a reversal of the ruling.
The PAJ said that the principle of open justice is fundamental in Jamaica, where any public member should be free to observe court proceedings except in exceptional circumstances.
In its statement, the JAMBAR said it had noted the media organizations’ call for a “rollback of the judge’s decision,” further supported by the Minister of Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Marlene Malahoo Forte, KC.
“The Jamaican Bar Association (JAMBAR) remains committed to the principles of open and natural justice. We acknowledge the public interest surrounding the case and believe the court must adhere to the principles of open justice, ensuring transparency and accountability.
“We also recognize the importance of providing reasons for decisions, especially when that impacts the media, the public, and the affected families,” it said in the statement.
JAMBAR said it appears that the PAJ is asking the judge to reverse her decision, noting that the judge’s decision complies with the Gun Court Act.
“The case concerns allegations involving a crime committed using a firearm and consequently is subject to the provisions of that Act,” JAMBAR added.
According to police reports, on November 10 last year, Mrs Silvera reportedly died in her sleep, but a postmortem later revealed the presence of bullet fragments in her body.
JAMBAR said that under the Gun Court Act, “only certain limited persons are permitted to be present at any sitting of the Court “…in the interest of public safety or public order…”.
It said these include the police, court personnel, the parties, their attorneys and witnesses, and other persons directly concerned with a case or “…such other persons as the Court may specially authorize to be present”.
It said the Act also permits the court “in the interest of public safety, public order or public morality…” to limit the information that can be published about a matter, including prohibiting any publication that could identify a witness or to publish any information other than the name of the accused, the offense, the verdict, and the sentence.
“The judge was, therefore, within her statutory discretion to prevent the media and the family members of the accused from attending the sitting. We regard the independence of our judiciary as of paramount importance. Our judges should operate in a system free of outside influences and pressure.
“If the PAJ believes its interests are adversely affected, we encourage them to follow established procedures. The judge cannot “reverse” a decision. If the court makes a ruling, there is the option of appeal, or an application can be made to the Constitutional Court.”
JAMBAR says that while it agrees that justice should be open and that reasons should have been provided, “we cannot agree with any public pressure of the judiciary to reverse any decision immediately.
“We advocate for adherence to correct procedures, respecting the sanctity of the judicial process. The court remains open to inquiries regarding the reasons behind its decisions, ensuring a fair and just legal system.
“Parliament has over the years used their legislative powers to restrict the discretion of our judges, which gives us cause for more concern, and we invite the media to highlight and focus on these restrictions which could undermine this independence and the administration of justice,” JAMBAR added.
It acknowledged that the case calls for a broader debate as to whether the provisions of the Gun Court Act, passed almost five decades ago,” should be urgently reviewed in light of the modern principles of open justice and in particular whether there should be established guidelines for judges to provide reasons where they restrict the access of the public and the media from cases which are of significant public interest.”
and then 