Executive Branch

Judicial Accountability and the Balance of

Government

is what I am fighting for Mr Hugh Marshall. How does that make me akin to Hitler ?

A healthy democracy depends on a careful balance among the three branches of government. Each branch has distinct responsibilities, and each must exercise its authority within the limits established by the constitution and the law.

I accept the separation of powers and that judicial independence is essential to the rule of law.

That Judges must be able to decide cases impartially, based on the evidence, applicable law and constitutional principles, without fear of political pressure, intimidation or retaliation.

Independence protects both the courts and the public, particularly individuals whose rights may be unpopular or vulnerable.

At the same time, judicial independence does not mean that judges are beyond accountability and could pervasively administer disproportionately lenient sentences on hardened criminals. This is the crux of the matter Mr Marshall, that you and others involved in the legal profession conveniently missed.

I am sure you agree that the courts should be subject to appropriate constitutional, ethical and administrative guardrails. And that a rogue judiciary would be a menace to society, just like any other branch of government that becomes unaccountable.

You and your colleagues are fully aware that I am not seeking to punish any judge merely for making decisions I dislike. The issue is at hand is the pervasive lenient sentences for those who commit heinous sex and firearms offenses.

I am fighting the injustice of lenient sentences, justice for the for the victims of these heinous crimes, through proportional sentencing.

The penalties in the existing laws are significant, yet the judiciary seems to be prioritizing its lenient sentencing orthodoxy, without due consideration for the laws enacted by parliament.

By so disregarding the maximum sentencing as enshrined in law – the judiciary is trespassing on the domain of the legislature.

The judiciary is one of three co-equal branches of government.

The Legislature makes laws, the Executive administers and enforces them, and the Judiciary interprets and applies them.

These functions may overlap in many ways, but no branch should exercise authority without legal limits or effective institutional checks.

I maintain that public criticism of judicial decisions is a legitimate part of democratic debate.

My criticisms are based on the strong reasoning; that lenient sentencing has resulted in an unmanageable repeat offenders population. This has resulted in an escalation in crime and violence that is undermining the quality of life of our people and the overall development of our country.

The challenges associated with this increase in crime and violence require the full cooperation and collaboration of all three branches of government.

In other words, they need to move in lock step with each other, without violating the separation of powers.

I am sure you are aware of the numerous acts of unintegrity in the judiciary, most of which have not been address.

I have therefore, asked for better accountability mechanisms to be put in place to address conflicts of interest, corruption, serious ethical violations, unreasonable delays, abuse of office and persistent failure to follow established judicial standards.

I have written to the Chief Justice and I expect these matters to be addressed through transparent and independent procedures, with due process for members of the judiciary and appropriate protection for the integrity of the courts.

Such mechanisms could include judicial conduct tribunal, with an appeals tribunal, public reporting, legislative oversight within constitutional limits, and clear procedures for investigating or removing members of the judiciary for serious misconduct or incapacity.

My argument is, where these accountability mechanisms fail and clear evidence of abuse or misconduct is determined; the executive may be forced to act at last resort.

I have never advocated for elected officials to interfere with individual cases, or retaliate against judges for lawful decisions. Neither have I ever interfered to influence any case or taken action against any member of the judiciary. So your Hitler comparison is clearly mischievous and vexatious; typical of your demeanor and character.

Accountability is not limited to the judiciary, but also the other branches of government in which I serve. Legislatures and executives must also remain subject to constitutional review, public scrutiny, elections, ethics rules and other lawful accountability measures.

No branch should be treated as infallible or placed beyond legitimate criticism.

Public safety demonstrates the importance of this balance.

When crime increases, citizens reasonably expect the Government to respond through effective policing, legislation, prosecution, prevention, social services and support for victims.

The courts also have an important role in fighting crime.

They must ensure fair trials, protect constitutional rights, and apply sentencing laws consistently and proportionally.

I reiterate for the umpteenth time; my articulations are not designed to weaken judicial independence or to permit political interference in the courts.

It’s a call for urgent realignment. To strengthen lawful, transparent and impartial systems of accountability across the judiciary and other branches of government, recognizing that no branch is above the constitution, laws or legitimate scrutiny.

The purpose of every branch is to serve the public, protect rights, promote security and preserve the integrity of democratic institutions.

A stable democracy requires not only independent courts but accountable ones.

This article was originally published by Antigua News Room. Read the original article here: PM Browne Responds to Hugh Marshall, Says Hitler Comparison Is ‘Mischievous and Vexatious’.