Bermuda’s top judge says he is keeping an open mind to the raft of changes to the legal system that were recently put before the House of Assembly by Government.

Chief Justice Ian Kawaley told The Royal Gazette the judiciary “broadly supported” the principle of increasing the powers of the court to effectively and efficiently manage criminal proceedings.

But he also acknowledged that there may be some legal concerns about the constitutionality of some provisions of the Disclosure and Criminal Reform Act 2015 and the Criminal Jurisdiction and Procedure Act 2015 as the proposed legislation represented a significant “sea change”.

“The Judiciary broadly supports the principle of increasing the powers of the courts to effectively and efficiently manage criminal proceedings,” said Mr Kawaley.

“We are supportive of that because it is in the public interest that the courts be seen to operate efficiently and that public expense is not wasted.

“In principle we are supportive of increasing the efficiency of criminal courts so long as it does not compromise defendants’ rights or the general fairness of trials.”

Both the Opposition and the Bar Council and Criminal Bar Sub-Committee have called the drastic reforms unconstitutional, but Attorney General Trevor Moniz has insisted that the Island’s criminal justice system was “broken and many, many years out of date”.

The changes mean that judges and juries will be able to draw adverse inferences from a criminal suspect who does not answer questions put to him or her where it would be reasonable to answer.

Examples would include asking a suspect why they had been at the scene of a crime, why they had blood on their hands, or why they had been found carrying an offensive weapon.

The reforms will allow the prosecution a right of appeal when defendants get off on technicalities, and lawyers and other third parties can be ordered to pay the courts for wasted costs caused by negligent conduct.

The new legislation also gives the prosecution the power to revisit old cases involving serious offences where “new and compelling evidence” has emerged.

Mr Kawaley said: “There may be legal concerns about the constitutionality of some of the proposed changes, but we are bound to keep an open mind on such matters because the courts may be required to adjudicate on such questions.

“The opposition there has been to the amendments is not altogether shocking bearing in mind that it does represent a sea change in the way in which the right to silence in particular has been traditionally defined.

“When broadly similar changes were implemented in England and Wales many years ago there was a similar outcry from defence lawyers”.