But can lead to another problem
BASSETERRE, St. Kitts – THE government’s move to abolish the Preliminary Inquiry process has been hailed a “good idea” by members of the legal profession.
A press release from the Communications Unit of the Office of the Prime Minister (CUOPM) explains that the effort began with the tabling of The Magistrate’s Code of Procedure (Amendment) Bill, 2011 in the Federal Parliament.
The draft legislation was presented by Attorney General Patrice Nisbett.
Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition in the Federal Parliament, Mark Brantley, who is also a practicing attorney-at-law, told SKNVibes that he views the move as a positive one, noting that anything that would expedite the course of justice is welcomed.
“I think it is a good initiative. My sense is that it gives a modern approach to do away with preliminary inquiries and so if that is introduced here, anything that will make the process more efficacious is something that we certainly will welcome. I believe that anything that seeks to expedite the process is something that we ought to welcome. The criminal justice system has to be shown to be working and people must have confidence in the system that justice will be done. So I think it is very important.”
Leader of St. Kitts’ main opposition party, Lindsay F. Grant, also a practicing attorney-at-law, has too welcomed the move.
“If what they are intending to do is ‘Paper Committals’ which is what obtains in the UK, I welcome it. It speeds up the process in the delivery of justice. An inclination appears to be not exactly the paper committals that the UK has and it still goes through the magisterial approach, which means it is still going to have that period before the magistrate. The paper committal, as I understand it in England, is that the matters are seen by the magistrate and you commit these to the higher court. If this is it, then it will definitely speed up the process.”
He however noted that this would exacerbate the problem of a case backlog which exists at the high court level, and suggested that another judge should be brought into the jurisdiction to assist with the load the resident high court judges currently bear.
“Obviously, for the first couple of months, we will need an additional judge. We need a judge who will deal with criminal matters and another to deal with the civil matters. The judge is obviously overburdened. So we need a judge to come in a deal with the entire backlog and then we get back on stream.”
Another prominent lawyer explained that under the proposed system the magistrate would “simply review the statements on record on which police intend to rely and any statements submitted by the defence and decide, based on the statements, whether there is a case for the accused to answer. If the magistrate decides there is such a case then the accused is committed to the High Court for a jury trial”.
He said this would eliminate the sometimes lengthy process that constitutes a preliminary inquiry, which would “speed up the time it takes to bring to trial persons charged with indictable offences and will save considerably in the time of the magistrates, police, witnesses, prosecutors and other court officers”.
