COST

 The difference in fixed costs associated with court filing expenses and the cost of
travelling to the UK to the Privy Council in comparison to the CCJ is a key deciding
factor on whether to relinquish jurisdiction from the Privy Council and to the CCJ. In
terms of fixed costs, the cost of filing an appeal with the Privy Council is five times more
than filing an appeal with the CCJ [ CITATION Mah14 \l 1033 ]. According to the Judicial
Committee (Appellate Jurisdiction) Amended Rules 2009, the cost of filing an application
for permission to appeal and the actual notice of appeal for an appeal value up to 100,000
pounds costs 350 pounds [ CITATION JCP09 \l 1033 ]. However, according to the Caribbean
Court of Justice (Appellate Jurisdiction) Rules, 2005, there are no costs associated with
filing an application for permission to appeal while the cost of filing a notice of appeal is
US$60, regardless of the nature or the amount claimed of the appeal [ CITATION CCJ05 \l
1033 ]. Thus, the major price difference can be seen. Apart from these fixed costs, other
expenses such as the purchasing a plane ticket to the UK for the litigant and their local
lawyer, accommodation, hiring an English licensed solicitor to prepare the case file and in
some cases, British barristers must also be hired, which is very costly. According to a
study by Andrew N. Maharajh published by Cornell University, the total cost of all these
expenses adds up to approximately US$65,000, a cost that only the wealthy can afford
[ CITATION Mah14 \l 1033 ]. Maharajh went on to further state that the fact that Caribbean
currencies are considerably weaker than the British pound, makes the costs of appealing
to the Privy Council even more prohibitive.
 The fact that the costs of appealing to the Privy Council is so expensive makes it very
unattractive to Caribbean people to appeal to there. The Caribbean is composed of islands
with small, struggling economies and the ordinary person as a result does not have access
to the justice that they deserve. This creates a problem of social inequality in the justice
system. Caribbean News Now posts a striking example portraying this. Over a period of
28 years, from 1990 to 2018, only 37 appeals were made to the Privy Council from
Antigua and Barbuda which is one of the countries that is still tied with the Privy Council.
Out of these cases,7 were criminal and 30 were civil. The news outlet further stated that
of the civil cases, a majority were from big companies and the government, most likely
because they were the only ones that could afford the high costs [ CITATION Car18 \l 1033 ].
 The Privy Council is considered to be an anachronism by many in the Commonwealth
Caribbean. According to Kenny Anthony, Former Prime Minister of St. Lucia, citizens of
 the Caribbean have assumed that just because our constitutions entrench a right of appeal
to the Privy Council, the British will be compelled to retain and finance the Privy Council
in perpetuity. He further states that there can be no greater constitutional anachronism
than this- that countries with independent Constitutions entrench a Court that depends on
the financial and legislative goodwill of its former colonial ruler (Anthony, 2003)). By
cutting ties with the Privy Council, Caribbean countries will finally be able to complete
their circle of independence.
 Relating to this point of anachronism, the Privy Council is immensely influenced by
precedents that were established by the English House of Lords, which is now referred to
as the Supreme Court. This clearly explains why they do not support the death penalty.
The Privy Council being the final court of appeal for commonwealth jurisdiction has a
negative social circumstance. Many of the cases are decided based on the English
precedent which often result in unfair judgement. All lower courts in the Caribbean; the
court appeal, high court. Magistrates court must follow binding decision from the privy
council and are unable to deviate because it is of Supreme authority. Caribbean people
should be prepared to accept English judgements because there is something superior
about English perspectives.
 It is a sensible argument that this approach does not relate to Caribbean society and
culture today. The Privy Council, being situated in the UK, does not understand
Caribbean dynamics and culture ((()). Regional entities today have realized the
importance of having a body of Caribbean jurisprudence that is specifically targeted
towards the nuances of Caribbean society (Andrew)). For instance, the CCJ has done an
outstanding job in setting precedent for issues relating to common law relationships that
are not addressed by the English common law or statute (put case?).
 By cutting ties with the Privy Council, the CCJ will be able to hire local professional
lawyers and utilize regional laws specifically targeted towards the “realities of Caribbean
society”. As a result, the legislations, lawyers and the Court itself can be further
developed and new precedents can be set. Furthermore, the fact that the CCJ will be
utilizing regional talent and legislation, this will help to foster regional integration
endeavours, which the Privy Council has been a hindrance for.
Change:But, the biggest advantage of the CCJ is that the court has been willing to grant
appeals in forma pauperism, waiving all filing costs when it deems them too burdensome on
an individual litigant.63 Though the Privy Council does allow appeals in forma pauperism, it
does so on a more limited basis.64
Change: The CCJ, in most cases, offers a much less expensive option to litigants.71 First, the
very motivation behind the formation of CARICOM means that litigants will not have to
exhaust resources pursuing a visa to travel to any CARICOM state where the CCJ sits.72
Second, by reason of sheer distance, travel to Trinidad, the current seat of the CCJ, is much
cheaper than travel to the U.K.73 Moreover, since the court is itinerant, it can travel to
signatory states to hear cases, lessening the need for litigants to travel at all.74 In fact,
physical travel itself may become obsolete because of the court’s e-filing system that has
been hailed as “impressive.”75 The seat of the court has already begun utilizing the system
to conduct hearings electronically.76 Other CARICOM signatories have installed
teleconferencing equipment similar to that of the seat of the court; this lessens the need for
travel for procedures like depositions and testimony.77 Finally, because of the relatively
small difference between exchange rates in the Caribbean,78 the average cost of Caribbean
legal counsel proves cheaper than British counsel.79

61. Duke E.E. Pollard, The Caribbean Court of Justice (“the CCJ”): Who Stands to Gain,
Presented at the Fifteenth Public Lecture of Management Institute for National
Development (MIND), 21(Mar. 13, 2008), available at
http://chooseavirb.com/ccj/wpcontent/uploads/2011/papers_addresses/The%20CCJ%20-
%20Who%20Stands%20to %20Gain.pdf
Issues with Privy Council
1. Travel costs – Cheaper to travel within the Caribbean than getting a visa to the UK.
2. Privy council limited to the narrow categories of cases of the wealthy and death
penalties.
Changes:
Roland Roberts v The State (Trinidad and Tobago) [2003] UKPC 1 where brothers
were found guilty of murder and given the death sentence. The matter was appealed
to the Court of Appeal which dismissed the matter; however, the case went to the
JCPC, and they won. Their victory was based on a wrongful practice of misdirection
by judges in regards to identification evidence. As such, the JCPC found that the
convictions were unsafe.
Moreover, in a recent case Oliveira v Attorney General (Antigua and Barbuda) [2016]
UKPC 24, the Privy Council held that indefinite administrative delays can lead to the
erosion of constitutional rights where the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal felt that
such a delay has no effect on rights (granting of citizenship)

The governments of Trinidad, Jamaica, and Barbados were just a few examples of former
colonies that chose to keep the death penalty as mandatory punishment for the crime of
murder.

Pratt and Morgan v. Attorney General of Jamaica. In Jamaica Pratt and Morgan were
sentenced to the death penalty by the Court of Appeal in Jamaica. However, it took them 14
years to actually be ready to conduct the execution. So, Morgan and Pratt appealed to the
Privy Council who said Jamaica’s Court of Appeal violated the constitution, and they cannot
be sentence to death as they waited too long.
These three cases set the stage for one of the most important Privy Council decisions in
Pratt and Morgan v. Attorney General of Jamaica. In 1979, Earl Pratt and Ivan Morgan were
sentenced to death in Jamaica for the crime of murder.96 Their appeal to the Jamaican
Court of Appeal was dismissed in December of 1980. In 1986, their petition for special leave
to appeal to the Privy Council was refused.97 Their execution was scheduled for March 7,
1991.98 Pratt and Morgan then filed an appeal arguing that imposing a death sentence after
a fourteen year delay, during which they were held in “subhuman” prison conditions, would
constitute a violation of Section 17(1) of the Constitution of Jamaica, which prohibited
“inhumane and degrading punishment.”99 Over the course of their imprisonment, the
appellants

To be fair, in a certain sense, the Court itself does not maintain a bright line between its
original and appellate jurisdictions. This is especially apparent in the work of several of the
judges who understand the overarching goal of the Court—in both jurisdictions—to be the
development of a regional jurisprudence and the deepening of regional integration. How
these objectives might be pursued in the Court’s original jurisdiction is fairly evident, as the
CCJ’s remit asks this of the judges. The Court’s decisions in these matters are guided by
regional treaties devoted to regional integration and constitute a single body of regional
law.
He went on to explain that even though the Privy Council also made appellate decisions that
it intended to have region-wide consequence, the CCJ, as a result of the collective nature of
its establishment, put it in a far better positioned to develop regional law and bring together
the region through this law

One expectation of the Court: Access to Justice

I would like to consider one final expectation of the Court that has resulted in additional
complexity in the CCJ’s operation. Access to justice was one of the stronger arguments in
favor of establishing a regional final court of appeal, and it has consequently become a
priority for the CCJ. Accomplishing this goal, however, is no simple task for a Court that
serves a region separated by the sea and that spans over 1,000 miles. It has required
creativity, technology, and, at times, nearly herculean efforts to make the Court’s justice
truly accessible.
Each contracting country has to file cases. But, there have been complaints that they are not
well informed as to the format CCJ requires. But, e filing solved this problem. It seems,
though, that these concerns have been mostly alleviated by the advent of electronic filing.
Also done in the name of access to justice, “e-filing” had been promised quite early in the
Court’s existence, but, by a renewed initiative spearheaded by President Dennis Byron, was
finally completed in 2013.
Video conferencing:
Access to justice is also behind the Court’s use of videoconferencing. With funding from the
European Development Fund, the CCJ oversaw the installation of videoconferencing
technology in one courtroom in each of Contracting Parties to allow for virtual Court
hearings and ease the cost and burden of travel to Trinidad.5 Since 2011, this technology
has been used extensively at the CCJ. Nearly every Court hearing, with the exception of
most final appellate arguments and original jurisdiction trials, are conducted by
videoconference. And, while there are frequent and interruptive technological issues, from
dropped connections to echoes, inaudibility, static, audio delays, and blank screens, the
system has unquestionably made it easier and less expensive for attorneys and their clients
across the region.
Regional Integration:
This includes small, but important gestures, such as an effort to hire a regional staff befitting
of a Court dedicated to regional integration.
Independence:
As an appellate court, the CCJ offers itself to each member state as the key to “complete the
circle of independence” and realize full sovereignty by providing an indigenous alternative
to the Privy Council (see e.g. Anderson 2013). To this end, the Court does what can to
present itself as each states’ own appellate court. Clothing, flags, and local laws are all
utilized by the CCJ to assist with the ‘nationalization’ of the Court. “We are the Court of each
member state,” says the 2005-2006 Annual Report, “so dress as you would at home, for you
are at home” (2007:6). And, following the suggestion of Justice Anderson, who worried that
the Court would not otherwise be “seen as part and parcel of the judiciary of that country,”
the flag of the country from which a case has been appealed is displayed prominently at
each hearing. Moreover, as would be expected, the judges apply the rules and laws of each
state to the appeals coming from that state.
Myrie case:
This case deals with important issues of Caribbean Community law which have not
previously been addressed by this Court. The most prominent among them is whether and
to what extent CARICOM (or Community) nationals have a right of free movement within
the Caribbean Community. The case also raises other aspects of Caribbean Community law
which are of very significant doctrinal and practical relevance. First and foremost, however,
this is a case about a young Jamaican woman who one day left her country, for the very first
time, in order to travel to another Caribbean country and, having arrived there, found
herself in a situation from which, several months later, according to Jamaican medical
practitioners, she was still suffering post-traumatic stress.
This case offers the most efficient summary of a case that can best be described as a
defining moment for the CCJ.
and in this chapter I consider how the Myrie matter became so important to the Court in its
pursuit of authority in the region. While there had been a handful of original jurisdiction
cases that preceded this one, all of which necessarily involved issues related the Revised
Treaty of Chaguaramas and, thus, regional integration, Myrie achieved a much greater level
of significance within the Court and without.
The underlying question that I want to explore in this chapter is how the Court took a case
about the mistreatment of a specific individual and transformed it, as I endeavor to show,
into something much greater: a means to build its jurisdiction and integrate the region. Page
74
But is it not reasonable to assume that the Judges of the Privy Council being removed from
the social environment are likely to be more dispassionate in interpreting and applying the
law? Yes! And herein lies the problem! Law is not a static corpus of abstract normative
principles to be applied mechanistically in order to arrive at objectively valid solutions to
resolve problems of human intercourse. Law is the normative outcome of the cut and thrust of
human interactions based on collectively determined or generally accepted social values and
subject to a process of continuing adjustment to its environment of control. Consequently,
persons interpreting and applying the law should be attuned to the relevant dynamics of social
interaction, which determine the quality and intensity of human intercourse, and the values
conditioning such dynamics. And by this is meant the values that make us cry; the values that
make us laugh; the values that make us happy or sad; the values that make us responsible,
productive, creative, caring, proud people. In short, the values that condition our uniqueness
as a people. In the premises, to be far removed from the immediate environment of social
interaction to which the law applies would facilitate a dispassionate analysis of human events
and judicially objective decisions but only to the detriment of desirable social behaviour and
social cohesion.

The recommendations for the establishment of the CCJ as conveyed to Cabinet were
specifically stated to be on the basis of six reasons which were as follows: 1. That the Privy
Council involves considerable expense in the pursuit of the right of the citizens having
regard to the location of the court in the United Kingdom; 2. That appeals to the Privy
Council have been abolished by most jurisdictions outside the Caribbean; 3. That it is an
inhibiting factor in the development of an indigenous jurisprudence which is more
responsive to the values within our society and our aims and aspirations as an independent
nation; 4. That it militates against the development of the potential of our local judges; 5.
That it is regarded as a burdensome appendage by the English judicial system and by some
as even anachronistic; 25 6. That it is inconsistent with the full attainment of political
sovereignty and independence.