Who is popular today?

QUEEN'S Counsel Peter Champagnie is calling for the Coroner's Court to be abolished, labelling it as outdated and irrelevant in the context of today's society.
"I am fast coming to the view that the Coroner's Court is an anachronism. I believe that it represents one of those aspects within the justice system that creates unnecessary delays. There may have been in the past great utility for a Coroner's Court [as] in the past, for instance, you didn't have the INDECOM office that, by way of an Act of Parliament, has the power to investigate and initiate prosecution of security officers. In the past we didn't have the Office of the Public Defender, and in the past we didn't have structured human rights groups as we now have.
"Now, to my mind, in that setting, perhaps the Coroner's Court was useful to determine whether, for instance, a police should be charged in respect of a fatal shooting or sudden death involving security forces. But now that you have a change in terms of the legislative landscape, it is my view that the Coroner's Court should be abolished," Champagnie told the Jamaica Observer.
The Queen's Counsel's comments come amid last week's revelations by the Sunday Observer that the family of Dr Yakeev Morris, the medical intern who collapsed and died last August, is yet to receive word regarding his cause of death.
Checks made by the Sunday Observer revealed that Dr Morris's death was referred to the coroner as it was deemed to be sudden and/or unexpected. However, the state of the investigations could not be ascertained.
Champagnie went on to criticise the processes involved with the Coroner's Court, arguing that it is a waste of resources and employs a weak method of adjudicating matters.
"It operates oftentimes with the element of a jury, and I don't know that that is the most efficient way of disposing of matters in the Coroner's Court because ever so often you will hear that the jury pool in the Coroner's Court is very limited; and not just that, the Coroner's Court in some parishes occupies space within the courthouse in the parish court. I can think of St Catherine, where the Coroner's Court will occupy a courtroom, that I think could be better utilised to try matters and dispose of matters that are already on the criminal list," he said.
He added: "The Coroner's Court for the Corporate Area which is held on Maxfield Avenue - a wonderful building, well-equipped, well-furnished. To my mind it could be better utilised in terms of the extension of the parish court at Half-Way-Tree where there is a difficulty in terms of parking space and so on. Even from the perspective of a physical structure, you find that it is impeding on the general flow and operations of the regular courts. Even when you look at it from the point of view of the decisions arrived at, they are questionable. And the proof of that is the fact that the director of public prosecutions (DPP), when it gets to the various courts, often arrives at a different conclusion; and what we have present now are State agencies by way of INDECOM, the public defender and others who carry out the function of what the Coroner's Court is supposed to do."
Further, Champagnie referenced the recent case involving Jodian Fearon, explaining that it was investigated by the police and the file submitted to the DPPs office that quickly had the matter resolved.
"The DPPs office moved with alacrity and came to a conclusion to say that no one was criminally responsible. I don't know that we would have gotten such a quick and speedy response if the matter went to the Coroner's Court, and even if it did, whether or not the decision arrived at would be correct. I am actually making the call for it to be abolished because I don't really see the necessity for it any more. Over the years the police force has developed to the point where they have various departments. You have organised crime, you have the fraud squad, you have homicide, you have C-TOC - you have all branches and the calibre of officers nowadays in terms of their training has much improved, and I don't know that anything will impede them from making [decisions] and investigating speedily. If there are doubts, the office of the DPP is there to advise. We operate in a climate now where there is really no need for the Coroner's Court, and it contributes, in my mind, to the delay and frustration. Cases that go there have been known to take a couple years. You create unnecessary layers and bureaucracy and it gives the justice system a bad name," Champagnie maintained.
Regarding the pending findings in Dr Morris's case, the Queen's Counsel said it could have had a police investigation into the matter and the file then submitted to the DPPs office to see if there was any criminal negligence or whether there should be recommendations for departmental charges.
Champagnie said: "I don't know that the Coroner's Court is so equipped. I think the time has come for us to move away from it because it represents, to my mind, another layer that impedes the quick process and the efficient process in terms of dispensing justice."
Meanwhile, DPP Paula Llewellyn, after explaining the process of matters before the Coroner's Court, said the time that it takes for a matter to be heard depends on whether the case file is complete and the state of the list of matters to be tried.
"You are competing with older matters to be heard and it depends on where they have jurors available. Usually they are going to have an inquest, which is an inquiry, into the circumstances of the death of the deceased," Llewellyn said.
The DPP added: "When everything is heard, the judge sums them up and then they decide whether anybody is criminally responsible. If they say nobody was criminally responsible, under the Coroner's Act all inquests that are done are to be sent to my office and we look through it to ascertain whether that is indeed so.
"We have seen one or two cases where either the coroner by herself or with the jury have ruled nobody criminally stands and when we look at the file, we believe that if you had a statement from A or a statement from B, we could go for an indictment, but that is usually in the rare cases. But, under the law we are mandated to examine the matter. If we find that, in our opinion, the coroner was correct in his assessment, that it wasn't a homicide but [instead occured] through medical issues or natural causes, then we will concur to the coroner's findings and notify the coroner of that and then also send the file with my indication that I concur with the coroner, over to the Supreme Court," Llewellyn stated.