The Gleaner Company Limited now recognises that our editorial, which appeared in The Sunday Gleaner of May 10, 2009, which imputed improper and unprofessional conduct on the part of defence lawyers, including Mrs Valerie Neita-Robertson, in their representation of Superintendent Harry Daley, was unfounded.
The Gleaner Company deeply regrets the imputation and unreservedly apologises to Mrs Neita-Robertson and the other defence lawyers for any distress or embarrassment that was caused by the said editorial.
For that matter, every Jamaican has reason to be seething at a justice system that is high on ideals and, when it gets around to it, is capable of a jurisprudence comparable with the best. But that's the point - when it gets to it, which mostly, is after a long spell of inertia followed, usually, by ponderous meandering.
Which brings us back to the case of Mr Daley, the superintendent of police whose last posting was head of the North St Catherine Police Division but who is now being tried before magistrate Judith Pusey for corruption.
Mr. Daley was arrested in July 2008, after a six-month police probe, allegedly for extorting protection money from businessman Lincoln Clarke. The police say they have video and audio recordings of Mr. Daley collecting the graft.
Mr. Daley's trial started a fortnight ago, went on for a week and was then adjourned until July 13. The reason for the long delay, it was announced in court, is that the lawyers in the case, Valerie Neita-Robertson for the defence, and prosecutor Dirk Harrison, have full diaries. That is, over the next several weeks, they have other cases in other courts.
By the way, the adjournment also suits Magistrate Pusey. She, too, has another case to attend.
not in the interest of the public
So, Mr Daley is left to languish. This, clearly is not in the interest of the public, which, too, has a stake in the case. For Mr Daley, as a senior member of the constabulary, is a public officer who is employed to and, up to the time of his arrest, was supposed to be working on behalf of the people of Jamaica. The public, therefore, has a stake in its early adjudication.
But Mr Daley, in the circumstances that have delayed his trial, is not singular. His situation is, indeed, quite common.
It is the norm of lawyers to turn up in court for one case, but also have another for the same hour, on the same day, before another judge. The usual course of action is adjournment. Judges do not insist on the cases being heard or having the matters thrown out for fear of being overturned at appeal.
Such behaviour by lawyers contributes in no small measure to the clogging of the justice system and the huge backlog of cases, about which lawyers, ironically, often join the throng of complainers. We, of course, know that such delays are, at times, strategic ploys: lawyers get more time to prepare cases. But there are other consequences, too: memories may fade, files go missing and witnesses may disappear, by whatever fashion.
It is, we feel, time for judges to pull the plug on erring and errant attorneys. They ought not to be allowed to hold the system to ransom.
Once dates are established for cases, there must be a commitment on the part of the lawyers to proceed to the end, except in the most exceptional of circumstance. Judges and the justice system must be ready to accommodate the process.
The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.