The Editor, Sir:

We have been waiting for years for the Charter of Rights. The bill to introduce it is based on a consensus reached by a joint select committee of Parliament. I implore the Opposition not to derail it once more by an argument about the Pratt and Morgan case.

It may not be widely known that the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), which the Opposition - and I - support, has pronounced on the Pratt and Morgan decision in its judgment in the case of Attorney General of Barbados v Joseph and Boyce (2006).

The president of the court endorsed the principal rationale of Pratt and Morgan, saying: "We respectfully endorse, without reservation, the proposition that the practice of keeping persons on death row for inordinate periods of time is unacceptable and infringes constitutional provisions that guarantee humane treatment." But he went on to differ from the Privy Council in relation to the time which elapses when a death row inmate petitions international bodies like the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.

The president said that he disagreed with the Privy Council's rejection of the idea that the period of five years should be increased to take account of delays normally involved in the disposal of applications to the human rights bodies. He added: "The refusal of the (Privy Council) to sanction any relaxation of what has now become a five-year deadline clearly contributed in no small measure to the decision of the Barbados legislature to amends Section 15 of its constitution to rule out the possibility that any delay, however long, in the carrying out of a death sentence could ultimately render it unconstitutional.

Unnecessary amendment

In other words, the CCJ was saying the Barbados amendment, which the Opposition seeks to insert into the charter, may have been unnecessary if the CCJ's more flexible approach had prevailed. If Jamaica joins the CCJ, its judgments will be binding, not those of the Privy Council. So more reflection is needed on the Pratt and Morgan issue. The prime minister was right in saying that he did not accept that there was no alternative to the "Barbados route".

Senator A.J. Nicholson, Opposition spokesman on justice, and I disagree on many things, not least the morality of the death penalty as a punishment. But we agree that both the Charter of Rights and the Caribbean Court of Justice should become part of Jamaica's constitutional framework. I urge both parties to come together on these two issues in a spirit of unity.

I am, etc.,

ANTHONY GIFFORD, QC

Attorney-at-law

Kingston