The second reason mentioned was ignorance, as the majority of the Caribbean population does not understand that the CCJ is not part of the local justice system. «The CCJ is a separate court, but we haven`t done enough to inform and educate people,» Justice Saunders said. Specific presentations will highlight commercial law issues related to an international component, such as the Panama Papers controversy, the US Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FACTA) and the (unfortunately) underestimated correspondent banking crisis. Given the region`s structural dependence on foreign capital flows into our economies, understanding these issues is critical to our ability to adapt and meet the challenges that come with them. Other interesting topics include the emergence of arbitration in the resolution of commercial disputes, the impact of BREXIT on the legal profession and the use of technology to promote the administration of justice. All of this is important for legal practice in the Caribbean. As comparable appellate courts, the CCJ and JCPC have similar procedures to those described above, but there are large differences in time and money that should be spent by individual litigants and states to pursue cases in either court. [20] Due to the different costs, the JCPC was really only accessible to certain death row inmates or very wealthy individuals. [20] In addition, the CCM has jurisdictional limits that have nothing to do with the costs of the appeal. The JCPC acts as a final court of appeal in a very limited way. [28] [45] At common law, the right of appeal does not exist in all cases and must instead be granted specifically. This is therefore done in the form of «statutory» and «leave» appeals (when leave is requested by the local Court of Appeal or the JCPC itself). [28] The first was the Caribbean Court environment versus the British Privy Council, where it was found that people have unfortunate experiences with their local justice systems.

«When trials are held in a less than adequate courthouse; when the courtroom is stifling; if the matter is postponed again and again; if an accused spends 10 years in pre-trial detention before his or her case is heard; then the idea of replacing a British institution (Privy Council) with a Caribbean institution is instinctively unattractive. While the debate over the CCJ vs. the Privy Council in the Caribbean has been raging since 2005, several commentators have agreed that the Caribbean region is truly independent of the UK, it must have its own reliable court of last resort. On the other hand, judgments or opinions which are subject to the initial jurisdiction of the Court of Justice shall be published in a single judgment of the Court of First Instance as soon as the majority of the Judges have reached a conclusion after final deliberation. No other judgment or opinion may be made or expressed. [22] [23] [24] This is in line with the practice of the CJEU and the EFTA Court of Justice as international courts. [22] He asked who in the region would be responsible for educating the public about the court`s role, adding, «If we want to move forward, we need to know how we want to make our country more independent. Sir Michael said that while the Privy Council was helpful, the CCJ would better meet the needs of the country. «It`s a regional court, but it`s also part of our development as a nation that we turn to our own court to settle disputes.» The really important feature of the CCJ`s decision was the recourse granted to the Mayan people. Constitutional remedies in the region are generally limited to statements and the award of compensation. The latter was not appropriate because the Maya had not properly pleaded and proved their loss. However, the court was ready to enact the potentially broad scope of remedies that the Constitution can provide by ordering the government to set up a fund to help identify and protect customary Mayan land holdings.

This decision is fundamental to the development of constitutional law in the region and should undoubtedly be very convincing in countries where a history of state neglect has resulted in citizens being denied the full benefit of even the most basic fundamental rights. The birth of the CCJ came after a long and arduous planning phase. In March 1970, the Commonwealth Caribbean Bar Association Organization (OCCBA) raised for the first time the question of the need to replace the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, as the final court of last resort for the Commonwealth Caribbean, with a regional court of appeal. Also in Jamaica, in April 1970, the Jamaican delegation submitted a proposal to the sixth Commonwealth Caribbean Heads of Government[4] for the establishment of a Regional Court of Appeal,[5] and the leaders also agreed to take steps to establish the Privy Council as the final court of appeal in the English-speaking Caribbean and appointed a committee of CARICOM Attorneys General to address the issue of the establishment of: what was then called the «Caribbean Caribbean Court» should be further investigated. Appeal». [4] The Jamaican Labour Party refused to grant full powers to the CCJ on the grounds that it was a suspended court. [51] [52] In February 2005, the Privy Council declared unconstitutional and therefore null and void the accompanying legislation relating to the CCJ passed by the Jamaican Parliament in 2004. The bills would have established the CCJ as the last court of appeal in Jamaica. [53] The Privy Council sided with the plaintiffs, including the Jamaican Human Rights Council, the Jamaican Labour Party and others, and ruled that the establishment of the CCJ as the country`s last court of appeal, without being enshrined in the Constitution, would undermine the protection of the Jamaican people under Chapter Seven of the Jamaican Constitution. The court concluded that the appropriate procedure for amending a well-established provision – a referendum – should have been followed.

Thus, it seems that, at least for some JCPC members, geographical and psychological distance (often raised as necessary for greater objectivity and impartiality) does not seem to be an issue, and more importantly, is the need for the Caribbean (and other Commonwealth countries) to mind their own affairs. In fact, the Privy Council has often been willing to accept the findings of Caribbean courts on local cases because they recognize that these courts are more familiar with Caribbean cases. [7] There is also a separate court in the Caribbean called the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court, the Supreme Court with unlimited jurisdiction to rule on civil and criminal cases and hear appeals from parties to judicial proceedings in proceedings of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) nine member states: Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, British Virgin Islands, Commonwealth of Dominica, Grenada, Montserrat, Saint Lucia, Saint Lucia.