The Tribune

“WHEN a man is on trial for serious crime,” said Lord Denning, “trial by jury has no equal.”

Denning, well known in England for his bold judgments that often ran counter to the law, had the distinction of having many of his decisions confirmed by parliament during his lifetime.

At one time we were also a firm believer that trial by jury had no equal. But no more. We would even wager that if Denning were alive – formulating his principles against the background of today’s depraved mores —he too would reassess his idealistic position.

On Monday, August 1, 2011 the Indictable Procedure (Amendment) Act and the Juries (Amendment) Act, which provides for non-jury trials in certain criminal cases in Belize, became law.

In an official statement the Belize government announced that “under these laws, every person who is committed for trial for the offence of murder, attempt to commit murder, abetment of murder or conspiracy to commit murder, will be tried before a Judge of the Supreme Court sitting alone without a jury is mandatory. In other cases, the prosecution will be able to apply to the Judge to order a trial without a jury on certain specified grounds.”

It further said that the jury system is diminishing in importance world-wide and there is a growing list of countries that have either abolished jury trials in criminal cases or have given discretion to the trial Judge to order a non-jury trial.

Twenty-two Commonwealth countries have already abolished jury trials in criminal cases. We suggest that the Bahamas should become the twenty-third.

Former Chief Justice Burton Hall was the first to seriously suggest doing away with trial by jury in criminal cases. Today’s depraved culture has so permeated and corrupted our legal system that one can sympathise with a Bahamian who complains that he can no longer look to the courts for justice. Our courts are a reflection of our society.

We recall interviewing a charming old lady in the Farm Road area about 50 years ago. She told of what a disgrace it was to become pregnant out of wedlock. A young woman was usually banished from the parental home so as not to disgrace the family. Those who could afford it went abroad to hide the birth. A few years ago we were shocked by the obituary of a well known lady who quietly lived the life of a respectable spinster. However, on her death she was survived by a daughter and grandchildren. The daughter was born and raise by relatives in the US.

But times have changed. Today children are having children with not even a blush of shame. An exasperated young gynecologist commented a while back that the maternity ward at the PMH was a factory daily producing society’s future destruction — unwanted babies being born to inexperienced mothers with a stud in the background in a position to know better. Often the unwed mothers are afraid to give the hospital the father’s name.

About 50 years ago births and deaths were a daily column in The Tribune. Every day a cub reporter would call the hospital to find out what mother gave birth to a baby that day. It was a column that everyone enjoyed reading…until that fateful day when society was shamed. The hospital had given the reporter the news that a baby boy had been born to a certain well known woman, the wife of a well known man. The town exploded. It was true that a son was born. The name of the father was correct. However, his wife was never pregnant, nor was she the one lying in that hospital bed. That was the day that Births were dropped from the daily column of Deaths in The Tribune. Today no one would dare resurrect it.

And, like chastity, every sector of our society’s moral fibre has been destroyed, including the spread of dishonesty in our justice system.

Sir Burton Hall — in a speech at a crime seminar in 2007 —described some of the complaints he used to receive “about lost files and missing documents, about matters being assigned hearing dates – because some member of the support staff is socially (sometimes, sexually) involved with someone having an interest in the matter or of some favour being received, in some cases, money being passed. In the vast majority of cases, these complaints are so imprecise that no investigation is possible.

“They, nevertheless have the effect of spreading cynicism of and distrust in the legal system, thus sapping the public confidence in its ability to deliver equal justice under law.”

“I apprehend,” he continued, “that with our gatekeepers at the support level, despite training and orientation programmes that we have in place, the system is infected by a culture common throughout the civil service of which the support staff of the Judiciary is a part. It is a culture which sees nothing inherently objectionable about accepting gifts from members of the public with whom they deal…

“That this culture seems endemic across the civil service is disturbing. When the agency involved is one responsible for regulatory matters, say, health and safety, it becomes menacing. When the civil servants who follow this pattern are on the staff of the Judiciary it becomes corrosive.”

Yes, important files disappear or are tampered with, juries are compromised — and, according to reports that we have received over recent years, jury tampering has become a serious problem.

Rather than brushing the problem under the carpet, now is the time to wrestle it to the ground and solve it.