A heated debate over proposed criminal justice reforms in Barbados has emerged after the nation’s top judge called for sweeping changes to trial procedures, drawing sharp criticism from two senior defence attorneys who warn the changes would erode long-held protections for accused people.
During the official opening of the 2024 legal year on Monday, Chief Justice Leslie Haynes told attendees at the No. 1 Supreme Court that Barbados should scrap the longstanding requirement that defendants give consent before their case is heard by a judge alone instead of a citizen jury. Haynes argued that the existing consent rule undermines the core intent of the current judge-alone trial legislation. Pointing to policy frameworks already adopted in other nations, he recommended the change particularly for drug and firearms possession offences, framing the shift as a way to speed up court processes while still upholding core principles of fairness.
“Judge-alone trials can deliver the efficient administration of justice we need, while keeping fairness and equity at the centre of the process,” Haynes said in his address.
But Verla De Peiza, one of the defence attorneys speaking out against the proposal, says forcing compulsory judge-alone trials would put Barbados in an outlier position globally. After reviewing trial policies across dozens of jurisdictions, De Peiza noted only a small number of countries require all defendants to face judge-only trials in specific case types. She pointed to context-specific reforms in other nations: South Africa scrapped jury trials entirely to address systemic racial bias in jury selection, while New Zealand only imposes compulsory judge-alone trials for low-level, less serious offences. No major common law nation has adopted the broad change Haynes is proposing, she argued.
De Peiza warned the proposal is just the latest in a series of incremental changes that have steadily chipped away at fundamental fair trial protections, including the presumption of innocence that forms the backbone of common law criminal justice. She outlined a string of recent shifts, including cuts to the right of unsworn statements, restrictions on the right to silence, the introduction of mandatory minimum sentencing, tighter bail rules, and a pending parliamentary bill that would expand how previous convictions can be used during sentencing.
“Drip by drip, these changes whittle away at protections that have existed for centuries,” De Peiza told local outlet Barbados TODAY. “It increasingly feels like the priority is securing convictions and improving clear-up rates, not delivering actual justice – and that is deeply concerning.” She also criticised the government’s approach to criminal justice reform as fragmented and reactionary, saying changes are being made piecemeal rather than as part of a comprehensive, consultative overhaul. Instead of scrapping long-tested legal principles, De Peiza called for a full public consultation to draft a new, unified national criminal code.
Fellow defence attorney Shadia Simpson echoed those concerns, noting that nearly all recent criminal justice reforms in Barbados have tilted heavily in favour of the prosecution and the state, steadily reducing the procedural rights defendants rely on to secure a fair trial. While Simpson acknowledged that judge-alone trials offer clear benefits for certain types of cases – including those involving complex legal questions or extensive negative pre-trial publicity that could prejudice a jury – she stressed that defendants should retain the right to choose their trial format.
Simpson noted that jury trials offer unique advantages for many accused people, giving them the opportunity to be judged by a panel of peers from their community. “Juries reduce the risk of individual judicial bias or prejudice, and defendants should absolutely have the right to choose that option,” she said.
In his opening address, Chief Justice Haynes also noted that most major common law countries including the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia have already eliminated defendants’ right to make an unsworn statement from the dock, and Barbados is currently considering the same change. But Simpson defended retaining the right, arguing it can be a critical lifeline for vulnerable defendants. She noted that for unrepresented accused people or those with limited formal education, the courtroom environment is often deeply intimidating. An unsworn statement allows these defendants to lay out their version of events without interruption, and in a setting that lets them speak more calmly and clearly than they would under cross-examination. For many defendants, it is the only opportunity they get to share their side of the story with the court, she added.
Despite their strong opposition to the proposed changes to trial procedure and unsworn statement rules, the two attorneys found common ground on another proposed reform: the creation of a dedicated Public Defenders’ Office. Both backed the plan as a critical step to improve access to legal representation and tackle the growing backlog of criminal cases clogging Barbados’ courts.
De Peiza explained that the current legal aid fee structure has not been updated in more than 20 years, making it impossible to attract young, new lawyers to work criminal cases. A dedicated Public Defenders’ Office would offer salaried positions for early-career attorneys, while also providing structured mentorship from more experienced practitioners to help them build their skills. “This would also go a long way toward easing the backlog we currently face, because right now we have far too few lawyers working at the criminal bar,” she said.
Simpson agreed, noting that a dedicated public defender system would offer much-needed job security to incentivize young lawyers to enter criminal practice. More working criminal defense attorneys would directly translate to faster resolution of pending cases, clearing the backlog more quickly than any other policy change, she argued. However, Simpson cast doubt on the idea that simply increasing funding for the existing Community Legal Services Department would deliver the same result, noting that most defendants seeking legal aid specifically request to be represented by more experienced attorneys, a gap the current system cannot fill.