The Editor, Sir:

Amnesty's charge of institutional corruption levelled at the Jamaican judiciary breaches a fundamental rule of law, it lacks specificity. The accuser must condescend to share the details. The vagueness of the charge inhibits the accused from mounting a viable defence, or, for that matter, any defence at all.

It may, however, be of assistance to explain the judge's role in murder cases. In the common law jurisdictions, among which our judicial system is numbered, a trial is conducted in an adversarial manner, meaning the parties before the court are combatants. The judge is the referee in the contest. In some systems, e.g the civil law jurisdictions, the trials are of an inquisitorial nature and the judge is involved in the investigation process.

The lower echelon

When a case involving a police officer first comes to court, the Resident Magistrate, a member of the lower echelon of the judiciary, sitting alone, will take the evidence to the available prosecution witnesses with a view to making a determination whether, on the evidence presented to the court, there exists sufficient evidence for the matter to go to trial. It is unusual for the prosecution to cease at this level.

The experience is, if the case is halted at this point it is invariably due to the failure of witnesses to come forward. It should be noted that it is the police who are charged with serving potential witnesses with notices of trial dates.

If the matter reaches the trial stage, a Judge of the Supreme Court, sitting with a jury, will try the case. It is important to note that it is the jury who are finders of the facts in a criminal case before the Supreme Court. The judge will give directions in law and the jury will make a determination .

The jury is selected from the voters' lists. Nonetheless, some commentators are of a view that the jury system is not enhanced by the reluctance of a large section of the society to serve.

Public scrutiny

Unlike what holds in the United Sates of America, the deliberations of the jury is not susceptible to public scrutiny. It may be argued that this veil of secrecy provides cover for persons bent on perverting the course of justice by tampering with the jury.

Your paper, sir, has been a watchdog in Jamaica for the past 173 years, and would have been alert to any such machinations on the part of such a vital organ of the Jamaican state. As a citizen, I am therefore comforted by your opinion that "what could hardly be credible is that the Jamaican judiciary is institutionally corrupt."

I am, etc.,

PETER CLARKE

peter_clarke2000@yahoo.com

Pembroke Pines, Florida

Via Go-Jamaica