The Editor, Sir:

The Gleaner of Thursday, December 13, 2007, reported inter alia: "The Opposition Leader is also seeking leave to go to the Judicial Review Court for orders to quash the Prime Minister's recommendation to prevent him from making the recommendation. She is contending that the Prime Minister has breached the rules of natural justice by his denial to give the PSC [Public Service Commission] members a fair hearing before making the recommendation to remove them from office."

The question many are asking is: What is a judicial review? A judicial review is, as the words imply, the review of the decision-making process of a public entity/body by the Supreme Court. The process is in two stages:

The preliminary hearing called the application stage, where the court decides whether the person bringing the matter has a case that is subject to judicial review. At this stage, the court seeks to determine whether, based on the facts and the law, permission or leave should be granted for the matter brought to be subject to a review.

If permission is granted, the matter proceeds to the second stage, the substantive hearing, where the facts of the case are examined. If permission was not granted, the person may appeal the decision to deny leave and, if successful, the matter will proceed to the substantive hearing.

Judicial reviews are not intended to interfere with decisions that have been made, per se, rather, they are intended to determine whether in the making of such decisions, there was due regard for reason, justice and the law. In the case of the Opposition Leader v the PM, one suspects that an interference with the decision, that is to say a reversal of the decision, is likely, if - and only if - the Opposition is successful.

The purpose of the remedy of judicial review is to ensure that an individual is given fair treatment by the authority that makes a decision. Thus, the papers filed point out that the PM has been unfair to the members of the PSC.

In judicial reviews, the court, among other things, seeks to determine whether the decision-making authority exceeded its power, erred in law, breached the principles of natural justice or reached a decision which no reasonable tribunal or authority could have reached. Thus, again, the papers filed by the Opposition make mention of these words.

Finding evidence

Professor Wade in a 1987 article entitled, 'New Vistas of Judicial Review' published in the Legal Quarterly Review, argues that an important part of judicial policy is preventing abuse of discretionary power, and in this regard, to find facts without evidence is an abuse of power.

Thus, it is significant that the argument of the Opposition includes an assertion that the PM has accused the PSC of misbehaviour (a purported finding of fact) but has not provided the evidence on which that "finding of fact" is based.

Finally, the issue of natural justice has been central in this matter. Natural justice as the case of Bazie v Attorney-General affirmed, rests on two pillars, one of which is the right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem).

The Opposition has, therefore, expectedly, argued that the members of the PSC have not been notified of their misbehaviour and given an opportunity to defend themselves against the charge.

I am, etc.,

CANUTE THOMPSON

canute_thompson@hotmail.com

P.O. Box 1270, Mandeville