Constitutional Court judgment

I refer to the law report which appeared in The Times under the heading Constitutional Court Raps Lower Court (August 13).

The heading is totally misleading. Appellate courts - the Constitutional Court, the Court of Appeal and the Court of Criminal Appeal - as well an any other court acting as an appellate court - e.g. the Court of Magistrates in deciding appeals from decisions of Commissioners of Justice - do not "rap" lower courts (or tribunals) when varying or reversing judgments delivered by those courts.

It is not the function of appellate courts to rap lower courts, whether in the sense of reprimanding them or of inflicting some kind of censure or punishment.

In finding that a lower court has erred, whether in law or in fact, and clearly stating so in the judgment, appellate courts are simply expressing their opinion on the matter or matters raised in the application of appeal.

Even if forceful or colourful language is used to bring home the logic behind that opinion, no reprimand or censure is implied. A careful reading of the reported judgment would have shown that in the instant case, the Constitutional Court simply disagreed with the lower court in that it held that the remedy provided by that Court was in conflict with certain provisions of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure, and that, therefore, other remedies were more appropriate.

Editor's note: Rather than reprimand or censure, the word "rap" was intended to convey the sense of criticism implied in the wording of the Constitutional Court's judgment: It said the lower court had "devised" a remedy "diametrically opposed to the law". It is regretted if the headline may have been misleading.