BEGIN:VCALENDAR
PRODID:-//Session events Calendar//IBA//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
VERSION:2.0
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTAMP:20260422T015849Z
DTSTART:20221102T133000Z
DTEND:20221102T144500Z
SUMMARY:Judicial mistakes and accountability: can the judiciary breach th
 e rule of law and\, if so\, what are the consequences?
DESCRIPTION:DiversityInclusionHumanRightsRuleOfLawIn 1857\, in the case o
 f Dred Scott v Sandford 60 US 393\, a majority of the United States Supr
 eme Court delivered one of the clearest examples of a judiciary breachin
 g the rule of law. In this notorious case\, it was held that coloured pe
 ople were property and\, as chattels\, were not entitled to citizenship 
 of the United States and the protection of its Constitution. A bloody ci
 vil war followed this decision\, which ultimately led to an end of slave
 ry in the United States. However\, progress towards any form of racial e
 quality was hindered by the United States Supreme Court. In Plessy v Fer
 guson 163 US 537 (1896) a majority of the court held that racial segrega
 tion did not breach the equal protection clause of the Constitution\, br
 inging about the infamous doctrine of “separate but equal”. Racial segre
 gation did not end until 1954\, when a unanimous Supreme Court held in B
 rown v Board of Education 347 US 483 that the equal protection clause ap
 plied to everyone\, regardless of race.\nOn the other side of the Atlant
 ic\, a majority of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council – compris
 ed of judges also sitting at the Supreme Court of the UK – held\, in Boy
 ce v the Queen [2004] UKPC 32\, that colonial laws dating from the time 
 of the British Empire\, regardless of their being “inhumane or degrading
 ”\, cannot be held to be inconsistent with the declaration of fundamenta
 l rights and freedoms of the written constitution. Immunity was said to 
 be “complete”\, i.e. absolute in perpetuity. Such interpretation of a co
 dified declaration of fundamental rights and freedoms obviously feels wr
 ong and may be argued to as defying any basic sense of human dignity or 
 understanding of what the rule of law means. The implications are profou
 nd and broad-ranging. The decision’s precedential value has consequences
  beyond the case in which it was decided in that many Caribbean laws tha
 t discriminate against LGBTI people\, or even still criminalise consensu
 al sexual intercourse between two adults of the same sex\, are also unto
 uchable colonial laws as a result.\nThe Diversity and Inclusion Council 
 along with [x] call for a special panel discussion to consider the impli
 cations of wrong judicial decisions what mechanisms can be employed to m
 itigate against such eventualities (e.g. such as not representing govern
 ments that wish to perpetuate errors of law) and if there are means to h
 old the judiciary to account for clearly erroneous decisions.\n
LOCATION:Room 233\, Level 2
UID:592f2766-418b-424b-bfa8-c46a2317e578
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR