EDITORIAL
“Many remark justice is blind; pity those in her sway, shocked to discover she is also deaf”. – David Mamet
In Barbados these days, the cry for justice is seemingly loud and unending. Whether it is the Mirchandanis or any other landowner appealing against the compulsory acquisition of their property by the state; the relatives of a murdered (or other) victim of criminal conduct seeking the conviction and condign punishment of the perpetrator; the former employee that does not consider his or her dismissal deserved, or indeed any other given citizen who feels that he or she has been denied their just deserts, they all ask for justice to be done.
This cry for access to justice is so prevalent and deserving in modern existence that it has been recognised as one of the sustainable development goals by the United Nations, paragraph 16.3 of which requires member states to “promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all”, an injunction that recognises the intrinsic links between access to justice, poverty reduction and inclusive growth.
Concomitantly, the right to pursue justice has also been transmuted into a fundamental right by section 18 (8) of the Constitution that stipulates the nature of any adjudication –
“Any court or other tribunal prescribed by law for the determination of the existence or extent of any civil right or obligation shall be established by law and shall be independent and impartial; and where proceedings for such a determination are instituted by any person before such court or other tribunal, the case shall be given a fair hearing within a reasonable time…”
Of course, the plaintiffs in each of the instances cited above perceive justice subjectively as being an outcome consistent with their interests – respectively, to obtain what they may consider to be adequate compensation in the property acquisition cases; to have the accused caught, convicted and sentenced in the criminal matters; to be reinstated or handsomely compensated for the job loss; and, generally, to receive their due entitlement.
In a previous editorial on the theme of access to justice, we suggested that this concept did not relate solely to having a court-provided solution and that other measures might be effectively employed to secure one’s notion of the just solution. However, our society prefers to regard the law-based solution as the optimal one in most circumstances and thus it would be extremely difficult to persuade otherwise a people acculturated to this belief, more so a populous legal profession and community that depend on this schema for its very survival.
As we are aware, nonetheless, there are more than a few hurdles to the acquisition of the individual perception of justice through court action. First, it is a regrettably expensive product. The cost of legal services is, frequently, a cause of despair to the potential litigant. Second, the judicial solution is undeniably slothful; so much so as to be reportedly used as a stratagem by defendants to enforce favourable compromise.
But most important, the legal solution provides no warranty that it will accord with the claimant’s perception of justice. Indeed, to the contrary, the Greek personification of justice reinforces this by being depicted in modern times as blindfolded and thus unable to perceive the individual circumstances of the litigants.
If we are to make access to justice an enforceable equal right locally, we should start by treating the issues of cost and sloth. The adversarial nature of the legal system of adjudication is such as to offer no guarantees of result.