Courts not battlegrounds

THE EDITOR: The Leader of the Opposition's stance on allowing all police officers to carry firearms in courtrooms, while seemingly well-intentioned, lacks solid reasoning and borders on populist rhetoric.

Her position, rather than supporting best practices, risks compromising the safety and neutrality that courtrooms strive to maintain.

In respected judicial systems worldwide, a controlled and neutral environment within courtrooms is paramount.

Countries like the UK, Canada, and Australia have strict firearm policies that limit access only to designated court security personnel, who are specifically trained for this sensitive environment.

Allowing a range of armed individuals in court, regardless of their law enforcement status, introduces unnecessary risks and could disrupt the impartiality that is critical in judicial proceedings.

Courts are not battlegrounds but places where justice must be administered without the shadow of intimidation or escalation.

Persad-Bissessar’s claim of “judicial hypocrisy” ignores the judiciary's responsibility to protect all courtroom participants impartially. Judicial firearm policies are rightly based on safety and neutrality, not external pressures or political motivations. Her remarks, which seem to shift blame for heightened crime rates onto the judiciary, politicise a matter of safety and undermine the independence of our courts.

Studies and real-world examples, especially from US jurisdictions, demonstrate the dangers of increased firearm presence in courtrooms.

In California and New York, for instance, strict firearm regulations are enforced to prevent the escalation of volatile situations. TT faces its own challenges with gang-related cases, and allowing police officers to retain firearms in such settings could only increase the risk of confrontations between opposing armed parties.

Moreover, policy decisions around courtroom security should be driven by objective assessments of safety needs, not fear-driven rhetoric. Court security protocols already exist, and any concerns about their adequacy should lead to a review and enhancement of these protocols, rather than blanket permission for all police officers to enter with firearms.

Reacting to transient crime patterns with ad-hoc security adjustments can set a dangerous precedent and erode the consistency needed in our justice system.

Finally, by accusing the judiciary of being out of touch with crime realities, Persad-Bissessar risks undermining public trust in our judicial institutions.

Courts must be spaces where the rule of law prevails without political interference. If we truly want to address crime, we should focus on comprehensive police reforms and community safety initiatives rather than populist appeals that do little to address root causes.

The call for unnecessary firearms in courtrooms is an unnecessary and potentially dangerous proposal. Instead, we should support the judiciary's efforts to maintain a fair, impartial, and safe environment. Let’s work on real solutions that respect our institutions and tackle crime without compromising justice.

RUSHTON PARAY

MP, Mayaro