The arguments against a precipitous leap into the embrace of the Caribbean Court of Justice have been persuasively rehearsed in your columns by Lloyd Noel with his usual clarity and force. It appears that the proponents of the CCJ as a final Court of Appeal, replacing the Privy Council, have been more muted, perhaps because in the end their only argument is that we should now be mature enough to cast off the final shackles of dependency on the United Kingdom.  They also make the point that only a Caribbean Court, staffed by Judges from the Region, can truly interpret our constitutions and laws in the context of current social and economic realities.

In my own humble view, there is nothing inherently wrong in an independent Nation State agreeing of its own free will to accept the jurisdiction of a Court which is not directly appointed and staffed from within its own territory.  Indeed, if that was the case, then even the arguments for the CCJ rest on unsteady foundations.  I note from your article that the Sultanate of Brunei has given jurisdiction to the Privy Council.  Because the grant of that power was voluntary and revocable, it does not in any way diminish Brunei's sovereign status.

As Lloyd Noel points out, Grenada (and several  other CARICOM countries) must change its Constitution by referendum if we are to submit to the CCJ's appellate jurisdiction and thereby abolish appeals to the Privy Council.  It is difficult to see how any Government could risk holding and losing such a referendum which would, in the context of our political development,  almost certainly be held in an atmosphere of party political animus and confusion.

Perhaps the answer is that, at least as a transitional measure,  we should seek to enhance the relevance of the Privy Council by requesting the appointment to its Judicial Committee of more members from the Caribbean.  I understand that the UK legislation provides for such appointments by Her Majesty and there are a few distinguished Caribbean jurists now on the panel.  Unfortunately, one very rarely sees their names in Privy Council hearings, even where the appeals have come from the Region.

There are certainly judges of wide experience and intellectual distinction within our Region so that it should not be difficult to choose (perhaps using the selection criteria provided for CCJ Judges) suitable candidates for recommendation to Her Majesty.  It should be emphasised that these are intended to be "working" judges so that they can be called upon to sit with their British and Commonwealth colleagues in matters concerning not just the Caribbean, but the whole range of matters before the Privy Council.  The experience they would gain of working at the highest appellate level would surely stand them in good stead if and when the CCJ becomes more widely accepted in the Region.

In fact, the idea could be taken further. There is, to my knowledge, no bar to a panel of the Judicial Committee sitting outside the U.K.  Would it therefore not be possible for the Judicial Committee to establish a panel comprising Regional and UK members to sit in the Caribbean from time to time to hear Caribbean appeals - perhaps even using the facilities of the CCJ in Trinidad ?

No doubt there is a cost involved in having  real and meaningful participation in the Judicial Committee.  Judges have to be paid, their travel and subsistence costs have to be met, and it would be unreasonable (and perhaps a derogation of our Regional responsibility) if these costs were not funded by the Region.  One feels, without having made a serious accounting, that these costs would be somewhat less than the proposed funding for the CCJ.

Unless a compromise can be achieved, perhaps on the lines that I diffidently suggest, the CCJ will serve only to divide rather than unite the Region.

Geoff. Croome
St George's
Grenada