As the Christopher 'Dudus' Coke extradition saga continues, efforts, far removed from the routine extradition hearing, are being made in the courts. However, transparency has become a casualty, with the information channels of the Supreme Court Registry and the Ministry of Justice suffering a severe censorship meltdown.

An application to seek a declaration from the courts of Jamaica "as to whether the minister of justice has (a) the authority and (b) the obligation to consider breaches of our laws and breaches which led to a breach of the treaty in coming to her decision" was filed in the civil division of the Supreme Court on April 15. However, the media later discovered that what was supposed to be a very public document from an open government was as difficult to get access to as Coke himself.

The motion was filed in the Supreme Court Registry by Minister of Justice and Attorney General Dorothy Lightbourne, but the recording had an unusual difference.

Normally, the suit number and the parties involved are listed in the suit book, but in this case, all that was in the book was a suit number, starting an information roadblock for journalists.

The file could not be located in the registry, and journalists were directed to get the relevant information from Rosemarie Harris, the registrar of the Supreme Court.

"I can only say who the respondents are. You will have to get the rest of the information from the lawyers who filed the suit," Harris told The Sunday Gleaner.

Dr Lloyd Barnett, one of the lawyers in the matter, when contacted, said: "It is a public document. You should be able to get the information from the Supreme Court Registry,"

Wouldn't give date

Harris would not even give the date which had been set for the application to be heard.

"A practice has developed, the authority for which I am not aware, where certain matters are given some unique treatment where the files are not readily available to attorneys-at-law or even the public," Patrick Atkinson, QC, said.

"This nonsense must stop," Atkinson argued.

He said the public has a right to know about the cases taking place in the courts, particularly when they deal with matters concerning public interest and rights.

Another lawyer who was asked to comment on the issue said: "There is a principle at stake here."

The lawyer - who requested that his name be withheld - said documents filed in the Supreme Court are generally public documents to which the media, on behalf of the public, should have access.

"It is not that the media were seeking an unusual or unreasonable favour, like trying to discover information from documents filed by a divorcing couple, or details relating to custody of a child," the lawyer added.

The Supreme Court's website is so out of date and unreliable - for weeks at a time the Appeal Court postings cannot be accessed - making it almost irrelevant.

Checks by The Sunday Gleaner of other websites for supreme courts around the world underlined how far behind Jamaica is in terms of access to judgments and other information.

In the case of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, judgments are usually posted on the website hours after they are handed down.

It is a similar matter on the website of the United States Supreme Court, where the latest judgment is dated June 1, 2010.

SOURCE: JAMAICA GLEANER