This afternoon we gather for the purpose of updating you on the position of the Progressive Liberal Party with regard to the government’s proposed Amendment to the Juries Act.

It is important for the public to understand and all our PLP supporters to understand the position of the Progressive Liberal Party on this important piece of legislation.

At the outset, I wish to state unequivocally, how much we decry the conduct of the Prime Minister during his contribution to this debate in the House of Assembly on Monday past (October 21st).

In seeking to deal with the PLP’s expressed objections to the way this matter was being handled, that is the lack of consultation; the fact that the public was generally unaware of details of the legislation and the potential consequences of its passage; and the spin that has been placed on the matter by the FNM and its partisans, the Prime Minister appeared to go berserk, shouting at the top of his voice and berating the Leader of the Opposition in a manner unbecoming of any Prime Minister.  Indeed, he went too far.

We believe that the Prime Minister owes an apology to the Leader of the PLP, Rt. Hon. Perry Christie, to all of us as PLPs and to the country for his totally unacceptable behavior at the last sitting of the House. His words, his tenor and his manner were unparliamentary and were abusive.  It is not conduct which is appropriate for a Prime Minister. It certainly set a bad example for the entire society, especially the children watching the proceedings of the House of Assembly.

This conduct was particularly offensive in the face of the number of speakers on the FNM side who, during the debate had been preaching about the need for members of the House to set standards of good behavior by the way they conduct themselves during debates. Unfortunately, they did not follow their own advice and their Leader was the worst example.

We call upon him to apologise publicly at the next sitting of Parliament.

The Juries (Amendment) Bill did not proceed to a vote on Monday 22nd October at the request of the PLP.  We believed that there was not sufficient consultation on the proposed amendment.  It was clear that up to the time that the House suspended, neither the Bar Association nor the Bar Council had been adequately consulted. Indeed the Bar President, who had taken the view that he could not support the amendment, was also verbally attacked by the Prime Minister for his expression of disagreement.

The former Attorney General, Alfred Sears, when he spoke, indicated that during his tenure as Attorney General the reduction in size of juries was not amongst the suggested amendments offered by the Chief Justice.  There were a host of other important unanswered concerns made by PLP members, some of whom had extensive experience practicing at the Criminal Bar.

The government did not adequately respond to those objections and concerns, nor did it provide any empirical evidence of the assertion that the changes would speed up the administration of justice or improve its efficiency.

It was therefore on the strength of the PLP's objections that the matter is now suspended until Wednesday of this week when it is hoped that the government will either provide adequate evidence to support its assertions, resile from its position or send the matter to Committee so that the appropriate consultations can be properly made and completed.

We are saying that this amendment represents fundamental change in the balance between the state and the defendant who is charged for an offence. The country has to be careful before it proceeds in making such a change.  The government must show whether and to what extent this will positively impact the unacceptably high rate and occurrence of crime and the fear of crime as well as the administration and efficiency of the judicial process.

As far as we can see at present, this will not affect crime or the fear of crime.  It will not speed up the administration of justice. Indeed the evidence from the Criminal Bar is that it will have no affect at all on speeding up jury trials.

We in the PLP are taking the time during this short break to solicit the views of civil society in The Bahamas including the group of that name. We have meetings scheduled tomorrow with the Chamber of Commerce and the Bahamas Christian Council. While some of our members have spoken with representatives of the Bar Association and the Judiciary, we are seeking more formal consultation before the House meets again on Wednesday 31st.

Further, we are in the process of collecting the statistical data on the issue relating to the administration of justice.

We wish to make it clear that we stand with all Bahamians who want to reduce the incidence of crime to an irreducible minimum, and that we are committed to support any measures, which would improve the judicial process. At the same time, this must not be done hurriedly and at the expense of the human rights of our population.

We invite the press to be more incisive in holding the Government to account on what it asserts will be the positive effects of this bill.

We will happily answer in questions that you have on the matter.