Dear Editor,
I write in support of the Guyana Bar Association.
I was utterly shocked when I read the profound statement released by the Guyana Bar Association. I commend these young professionals for their bold, courageous and informed position which was so well-articulated.
It is after reading the statement of the Bar Association that I was made aware that jury trials were scheduled to be resumed in Guyana. This has to be the first territory in the Commonwealth Caribbean to contemplate such a reckless course of action in the face of a rampant, uncontrolled pandemic particularly in Region 4.
History has taught us that with great power comes even greater responsibility for those who hold the reins of power and who hold the fate and well-being of segments of society within their control.
The Head of the Judiciary has to be aware of the enormous power that resides with them in summoning members of society to command them to be present at Court to serve as jurors at this specific juncture.
To elect to exercise that authority upon civil society who are already overburdened with the events of the last six months, electoral, COVID and financial depression, is disgraceful and indicates that our welfare is certainly not a paramount consideration.
Jury trials will involve 12 members of the public seated in a courtroom, fearful that the person next to them may be COVID positive and asymptomatic.
Relatives and acquaintances of mine have served on juries in Georgetown. From their laments to me, and with the benefit of my own observation, the facilities in a courtroom are unacceptable for the conducting of a jury trial and pose a threat to all present at this time.
The Judiciary ought not to seek refuge in hand sanitizer, washing of hands and social distancing as their criteria for the resumption of a jury trial. They seem content that they have done their part by so doing in ensuring the safety of the jurors. This is ludicrous and extremely disappointing.
The public expects to hear statements from the Head of the Judiciary in the manner issued by the Guyana Bar Association and Chief Justice Ivor Archie of Trinidad and Tobago, and not the reverse.
Perhaps they should take a page out of Archie CJ’s book.
Chief Justice Archie stated:
“By compelling people to physically attend upon you in a place in person, you assume a moral and legal responsibility to take all reasonable steps to safeguard their health and safety and to mitigate foreseeable risk.”
It is important to note that this statement was not even made in contemplation of the resumption of a jury trial. This arose when he gently chastised Justice Frank Seepersad for his decision to conduct an in-person hearing in the face of this pandemic. The Judiciary of Guyana should not permit in-person hearings in any matters at this time. The matters can quite properly be conducted remotely.
As the Guyana Bar Association quite accurately stated, the right to a hearing is not absolute and must be balanced against considerations such as public health.
The authors of this unthinking decision to resume jury trials have clearly turned a deaf ear to the caution of a risk of contagion by jurors, court staff, police officers and all present from asymptomatic carriers of the virus and to the escalation of cases within the country. The same applies to in-person hearings at the Court which should all be conducted remotely in the interest of the safety of all having regard to the surge in cases.
Yours faithfully,
Stephanie Isaacs
