If Jamaica's per capita income were five times what it is and crime a fifth of what it has been, perhaps I would be less concerned about the proposed Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) as appears to be the case with politicians on both sides of the fence, in Trinidad and Barbados.

The argument for abolishing appeals to the Privy Council is logical and clear and can have only one result in the long term, which is that ultimately the Privy Council is likely to (and should) go. But that is not, with respect, the issue at this time.

In Trinidad and Barbados, they do not have the deep seated fears expressed by others for the possible 'political manipulation of the proposed court'. I accept them at their word. I however do and I could, I suspect, secure similar positions from a long list of sane persons. This fear is not necessarily from the incumbent government or that sitting in waiting, but potentially from some future one, the likes of which I cannot yet identify, who on seeing a crack in the armor will drive a wedge in it, curse Caricom, pull out of the arrangement and set up with its simple majority some other court as was the CCJ.

I want a fairly permanent structure, financially well supported, that will be difficult to change without the fulsome agreement of the people. These matters must be gaged on a worst case scenario not the current. Many forget that in Trinidad a few years ago Parliamentarians were held hostage at the end of the barrels of guns for a few days.

I have very serious concerns. While I support the concept and am sure I have done so for longer than many only recently on board, I don't support the court's Original Jurisdiction at all and I am not prepared to give up the Privy Council for any old court. Further I object to any sense in which it seems that we are as a people, negotiating with Government, including the Governments of participating territories, to give me or any citizen something in this matter. There is nothing for Government to give or for me to get from government in the matter of the establishment of our highest court. This is a constitutional matter of rights enjoyed by all citizens albeit in legal theory. It is the citizens who should decide what they want and will permit, not Government.

My understanding is that while the Bar Associations of Jamaica , the Bahamas, Grenada, the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS), St. Lucia and Trinidad & Tobago, also think the idea of a CCJ is a good one in principle, they all have come to conclusions that raise concerns regarding the adequacy of the existing judicial systems and the proposal to establish the CCJ. These relate to :

	i.	the insulation of judges from political manipulation,
	ii.	the finances of the Court, which should be provided for five years (without borrowing or reliance on donor agencies).
	iii.	that an acceptable system for the selection and appointment of Judges the terms and conditions of service for the Judges.
	iv.	the entrenchment of the Court in the Constitutions of participating territories.

They also feel for example that the President should not be the Chairman of the Regional Judicial Services Commission, has too much say in the selection of other members and that a single head of Government should not be able to initiate a move to dismiss the President.

Insofar as I am concerned the following are a few highlights of some areas of concerns

1	It is my view that Government has a duty to the public to set out in complete detail, all the negotiations, proposals and discussions that have taken place to enable the public to understand the issues and the positions of participating territories. There is nothing whatsoever regarding the proposals that should take place in these discussion which should be private, as if some private contractual matter was being negotiated.
2.	It concerns me that all territories are not on board yet territories that are not parties(e.g. the OECS) will have a say in selecting judges that will hear this countries final Constitutional, Civil and Criminal appeals! Countries who are not parties to the CCJ's proposed final Constitutional, Civil and Criminal Appeals, ought not to have any say in the selection of the Judges who are to make up the Court to hear our final appeals. If 'Original Jurisdiction' is the source of this, then that is merely a further reason to separate the CCJ and the proposed Original Jurisdiction. For those who bother to check, the European Union set up a European Court of Justice together with a separate Court of First instance. The EU has an elected Parliament and passes EU laws and this Court of First Instance, has original jurisdiction in certain EU matters, but it is a separate court. If the CCJ was modeled on the EU, why is this model not being followed in this instance?
3.	It concerns me that the President of the Court is to be selected by three quarters of the the Heads of State (with three parties that means unanimous) and that as the documents now stand, the President will have, more than a say in the actual selection of many members of the Regional Judicial Services Commission who are to select judges.
4.	Will it be a requirement that the Court be entrenched in our Constitution ? Will it be a requirement as a condition of any agreement, that the Court be entrenched in the constitutions of other participating territories ?
5.	That the educational campaign in Jamaica, has treated the Court, as a fait accompli where people are not given an opportunity to influence the outcome but are being told what the court is. In effect treating the CCJ as if it was the Telecommunications Bill passed in Parliament and here I make no comment about that Act.
6.	That the requirement for entrenchment in all the participating territories is being treated as if it is an ex post facto option. That is, set up the court and then decide whether it is to be entrenched. Are we serious?
7.	That no explanation has been offered regarding the fact that only three Caricom territories are to be parties to the CCJ initially. If it is such an imperative why have other Caricom territories absented themselves from the initial agreement?
8.	That there is no mechanism proposed or even considered, the intent of which is to involve the people in the region in a more direct fashion in the selection and appointments of Judges to this proposed Court.
9.	That no consideration has been given to the fact that the issue of access will impact most negatively on those criminal appeals currently handled free of costs by London city firms in the UK. The cost of this is substantial on any measure and I do not see our criminal bar being in any position to take this up. Not because they are unwilling to, but because of magnitude. Even the London city firms have made the point in relation to the costs to them. It runs into millions. Who will take up the costs of filing and arguing these appeals on behalf of the poor? Will the quality be maintained? Isn't the likelihood that these persons will loose to some degree, the benefit of this representation with nothing to replace it?