The Alternative Dispute Resolution Bill 2010 and the Contempt of Court Bill 2010 were last Thursday passed in the National Assembly.
Both pieces of legislation were piloted by Attorney General Charles Ramson Snr. The Alternative Dispute Resolution seeks to provide for the mediation of disputes as an alternative to litigation in civil cases.
The Contempt of Court Bill sought to define the powers of certain courts to punish individuals for contempt of court and to regulate their procedure in relation to these matters. The previous law which covered such matters dated back to 1919, the House was told.
While the Alternative Dispute Resolution Bill received the unanimous support of the house, concerns were raised by the opposition about the Contempt of Court Bill.
AFC Chairman Khemraj Ramjattan said his party had “tremendous difficulties” with the bill particularly since there was no consultation on the piece of legislation with judges and lawyers. He also said that the proposed law made any offence of contempt punishable by criminal penalties.
According to him, poor persons were now placed in disadvantageous positions in cases where they are instructed by the court to pay a particular fine but are unable to do so just because of their poverty.
He said should contempt proceedings be filed against such an individual the person would find himself facing stiffer penalties than previously prescribed.
The government rejected the suggestions that no consultations were held and said that consultations were held with the Bar Association since 2008. PNCR-1G MP Basil Williams echoed the sentiments of Ramjattan and rejected the government’s contention that proper consultations had been held. He also expressed concern at the part of the bill which prevents jurors from disclosing any information from a criminal case even after the matter had been completed. He noted that this was not the case in other jurisdictions.
PPP/C MP Bernard De Santos noted that there were not many incidents of contempt of court occurring locally but said that the bill was necessary to maintain the “awe and majesty of the court”. Nevertheless he contended that there were times when there was blatant disregard for the rulings of the court. He said that this was because courts tended to be slow to react to these acts of contempt.
Ramson rejected the contention of the opposition and said that the piece of legislation had “a long gestation period”. He said too that the provisions in the bill were meant to uphold the integrity of the courts.