Fast-tracking national and constitutional issues through the Courts

DEAREDITOR,

In2018asaresultofthe no confidence motion, matters of great legal and political significance were initiated.Iwishtotalkabout therippleeffectsinthelegal realm caused by the court matters filed in the wake of thenoconfidencemotion.

Litigation relating to the events which took place in Parliament on 21 December 2018 was filed on 8 January 2019 and a written decision was delivered by the High Court on 31 January 2019. The case took 23 days to be decided, which is quite an extraordinary feat for Guyana.

Thenanappealwasfiled on24February2019andthe Court of Appeal gave its written decisions on 22 March 2019. Again, in less than 30 days a decision was given, this is far from the norm.

Sincetheintroductionof the Civil Procedure Rules and case management systems in 2016, the time of High Court matters has decreased. Appeal matters can still take years, for an appeal to come to a final writtendecision.

In matters of public and constitutional importance, finality is paramount Guyana would benefit from change which would see final outcome of litigation sooner than is currently the case.

The no confidence litigation showed what is possible when a case is of critical importance to the interestofthesociety Atthe time, the Courts and the lawyersknewthatthewhole society was waiting with bated breath to hear the determinationofthematter

LEAPFROGAPPEALS

Iwishtoraisetheissueof leapfrog appeals Such appeals would significantly reduce the timeframe of constitutionalmatterswithin

Guyana.

Thelengthoftimewhich litigation is before some Courts has been reduced. However, litigation with national consequences should be determined in the shortest time possible. It is my opinion that leapfrog appealscanreducelitigation time for matters of constitutional and national importance.

Lifecycleof Constitutional Matters

Before outlining the details of leapfrog appeals, consider the lifecycle of Constitutional litigation in Guyana Constitutional matters start in the High Court before a single judge. Oncethatdecisionisgivena party may choose to appeal. Depending on the originating process used to institutethelitigation,itmay be put before two judges of theHighCourtsittingasthe FullCourtoritmaygotothe

Court ofAppeal of Guyana. It may sometimes be appealed to the Caribbean Court of Justice. Therefore, at the very least, the traditional appellate process puts constitutional litigation before3courts.

Sometimes it can be heard by 4 courts before a final decision can be delivered. This equates to months on the shorter end, andyearsonthelongerend.

Leapfrogginginessence

The leapfrog appeal would allow litigants who wished to appeal a decision of the High Court to go straight to the final appeal courtwhichinourcaseisthe CaribbeanCourtofJustice.

UNITEDKINGDOM LEAPFROG PROVISIONS

The provisions in the Administration of Justice Act allows for leapfrog appeals Litigants in the United Kingdom, after a decision by the High Court, can then seek permission of the High Court to bring the litigation straight to their apexCourt.

Valueof Leapfrogging

The value of a leapfrog appeal in constitutional litigation where time to a final decision is of the essence would be an invaluabletoolinhelpingthe wheelsofjusticegrindmore swiftly

HOWCANLEAPFROG APPEALSBECOMEA REALITY?

Leapfrog appeals can onlybebreathedlifethrough passage of law The first option is for a bill to be presented and passed in Parliament which makes provision for leapfrog appeals.

The second option is for a bill to be passed to amend an existing act which would add provisions to address leapfrogappeals.Thesecond option would more appropriate since there would also need to be amendments to the High Court Act, the Court of Appeal Act and the CaribbeanCourtofJustice Act to make the subject of this article a reality

Whichever method is chosen, the law must set out inplaintermsthatifalitigant wishes to engage in a leapfrogappeal,theleaveof the Court must be sought to takethematterstraighttothe Caribbean Court of Justice rather than the traditional route.

Appropriateness Andapplication

The question may have crossed your mind, why are you suggesting limiting leapfrog appeals to only constitutional cases and not to every matter litigated before the Court? Not every matter would be appropriate foraleapfrogappeal.

Itmaybethatevensome Constitutional matters may be inappropriate for the leapfrog appeal The determining factor in my opinion would be whether the case has significant factualissuesindispute.Ifa casedoesthenitmaybenefit from going through the traditional appeal process, where it has the opportunity if necessary to have fresh evidence adduced in the lowerappellatecourts.

Finalwords

It was reported in the localmediathattheAttorney General is planning to pilot legislative provisions which willincreasethecompliment of Appeal Court Justices from a maximum of 5 to a maximum of 9. Perhaps leapfrog appeals could be added to the legislative agenda.

Yoursfaithfully, BrendenGlasford