The Tribune

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

The Privy Council’s rejection of a blinded accident victim’s $522,000 damages claim has exposed the need for “improved” law reform and reporting processes in the Bahamas, a noted QC said yesterday.

Brian Moree, senior partner at McKinney, Bancroft & Hughes, said the issues raised by Eric Antonio’s case against Insurance Company of the Bahamas (ICB) had highlighted the need for a more proactive, urgent approach to law reform.

Tribune Business revealed on Monday how Mr Antonio and his attorneys, Cedric and Khalil Parker, were unable to enforce a $521,943 damages judgment against ICB as the insurer of a jitney he collided with, resulting in his blindness.

This was because the jitney’s driver, Stevan Edgecombe, was not among the 11 Convenient City Transit Services employees named on the ICB policy as persons ‘authorised’ to drive the vehicle.

This ‘restricted driver’ clause, which insurers use to limit their payout liability exposure only to accidents involving ‘authorised’ drivers named on the policy, barred Mr Antonio’s claim even though Edgecombe’s “negligence” caused the accident.

Mr Moree yesterday pointed out that the Court of Appeal, in its May 2013 ruling on the ICB case, had called for the Government and Parliament to examine new laws that would enable victims of uninsured drivers to be compensated for their injuries and vehicular damages.

Two-and-a-half years later, nothing has been done, yet the Privy Council - in overturning the Court of Appeal verdict on Monday - also urged the Government and legislative body to act.

Mr Moree told Tribune Business that the Law Reform Commission was the best body to assess the situation, and make recommendations either for new laws or to amend existing ones.

He added, though, that the Law Reform Commission needed to be properly resourced and staffed to fulfill its obligations, and called on the Government to ensure this was done despite the Bahamas’ strained fiscal and economic position.

And Mr Moree said the ICB ruling had also exposed the need for better law reporting in the Bahamas, for unless reported in the media, Bahamians were often unaware of key Supreme Court decisions and their potential implications.

This, he added, was unacceptable in a common law jurisdiction such as the Bahamas, where much law was based on the precedent set by previous judicial decisions.

“I think this [Antonio] case emphasises the need for active law reform, and highlights the importance of its effectiveness,” Mr Moree told Tribune Business.

“This is the type of case that should be immediately referred to the Law Reform Commission for it to review and see if it will make any recommendations to the Government to address the issue.”

Mr Moree added: “To this extent, I think it is important, even in these difficult economic times, that sufficient resources be made available to the Law Reform Commission to it can carry out it’s important functions.

“The primary role of the Law Reform Commission is to conduct a review of the law on an ongoing basis to identify areas that need reform and amendments.

“It’s not intended to be a reactionary process, where certain issues arise that expose problems in the statutory provisions, but it’s intended to have a proactive role where it conducts systematic reviews of laws.”

Mr Moree said the Law Reform Commission’s mandate was to ensure the Bahamas maintained a modern package of laws, something that is vital to this nation’s commercial prospects as well as its citizens’ welfare.

Yet, while the Law Reform Commission was doing the best job it could, the well-known QC said it was confronted by the same challenges experienced by many other government departments in terms of financing, manpower and facilities.

“While law reform may not be a high profile subject that attracts the attention of the average Bahamian and voter, it is nevertheless a critical component of ensuring our laws across the board stay current with society’s needs, and regional and international standards,” Mr Moree told Tribune Business.

“There are many areas in statute law today that require urgent reform and amendment. This sort of case is a prime example of that, where you have two courts - the Court of Appeal and the Privy Council - are urging the Government to look at legislative intervention or amendments.”

Mr Moree said the Antonio/ICB case had also exposed the need for better law reporting, and bringing precedent-setting judgments to the public’s attention - such as the Court of Appeal and Privy Council rulings.

“It highlights the need to have a more structured system of law reporting,” he added. “If these decisions are not picked up by the press, there is no system of law reporting that allows court decisions to be picked up and enables members of the public to follow these decisions made in the courts.

“Bearing in mind that we are a common law jurisdiction where decisions are based on precedent, this case is a good example of why we need to address these issues in a more structured way.”

While Court of Appeal and Privy Council decisions are released publicly via their respective websites, the last judgments posted on the Supreme Court’s date back to 2013.

“I think law reform and law reporting have to be improved,” Mr Moree told Tribune Business. “There should be, in 2016, a system of law reporting which we don’t have.

“These are important components of a modern legal system, and there’s a need for ongoing improvements in these two areas for us to enhance the administration of justice and ensure people can follow these decisions by the courts.

“It shouldn’t be a case of pot luck if you come across a decision or not.”