Centre Of Justice: The Bills Ought To Be Rejected

June 24, 2015

The legislative measures in the Disclosure and Criminal Reform Act 2015 and the Criminal Jurisdiction and Procedure Act 2015 “erode the fundamental rights of the citizen” and “ought to be rejected” the Centre of Justice said.

The Centre sent a letter to the President of the Senate which said, “We write to you to draw to your attention; to our concerns regarding certain provisions of the Disclosure and Criminal Reform Act 2015 [the “Reform Act”] and the Criminal Jurisdiction and Procedure Act 2015 [the “Procedure Act”, collectively referred to as the “Bills”] which potentially infringe the Bermuda Constitution.

“We wish to associate ourselves with the Bermuda Bar Association’s [“the Bermuda Bar”], support for any reform that is aimed at improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the administration of the criminal justice system. However, certain provisions of the Bills potentially contravene the right to a fair hearing guaranteed by the Bermuda Constitution.

“The Bills passed by the House of Assembly on 5 June 2015, will be before the Senate soon and it is hoped that the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Bills will be given serious consideration by the Senate in its deliberations.

“We respectfully submit that the legislative measures in the Bills, as discussed above, erode the fundamental rights of the citizen, therefore on this point alone, the Bills ought to be rejected.”

The full letter follows below [PDF here]:

Read More About

Category: All, News, Politics

Comments (10)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. average bermudian says:

    Unlike the IMMIGRATION changes that have eroded the birth rights of every born bermudian AND have been rammed through the law without any consultation by these fools in GOVT.
    Now they attempt this bull s##T. Clearly the Gov’t does not have the best interest of the average bermudian
    at heart. Who are they working for ?????????

    We do have some fools leading this country – at the moment

    • Not exactly says:

      Kindly define “birth rights”. I have been hearing it a lot lately and it is clearly an emotive turn of phrase. I can think of numerous ways in which this phrase is not clear and would love to find out where you stand on its use and connotations.

    • jt says:

      - No birth rights were affected.
      - Changes presently being proposed have been in place for years in the U.K. I’d like to know the benefits or detriments experienced as a result.
      - Who are the sitting members of The Centre of Justice? When was it formed?

  2. sage says:

    Where was the “CoJ” when asset forfeiture turned the rule of law on its head by placing the burden of proof on the accused?

  3. San George says:

    Power is not given it is taken. You people need to own your MP. Forget the two political parties. It takes 400 votes to get elected in some constituences. Organize your people.

  4. watching says:

    Well well…what will the OBA do now when even objective neutral organizations are commenting or their shenanigans?

    • hmmm says:

      Objective and neutral ? …. are you sure that their members won’t benefit at all from their perspective????

    • Zevon says:

      They’re defense lawyers. How can they be described as “neutral”? Or “objective”?
      They are a narrow focus pressure group. Their interests are specific.

  5. Serious Though says:

    Every human being have the right to a fair trial, not fair treatment from justice system. no government or any institution should never ever legislate , instead make it more strong. The right to a fair trial, start with , not incriminating yourself, invoking your right for silence and also not forced to testify . unless we are set to go back to 19th century trial by kings..or lords or Chiefs .. This is very troubling for a government to engage in this kind of legistation. Unless someone made a mistake on this issue, it’s something even the human rights commission should comment on.