The involvement of Leigh Day, a reputable British law firm, in CARICOM’s campaign has sometimes been cited as evidence that the legal case is stronger than critics suggest. The reality is more nuanced.
Leigh Day was engaged by CARICOM to prepare a Notice of Complaint and advise on legal strategy. The firm has a track record of bringing successful human rights cases in British courts, including cases arising from colonial-era abuses such as the Mau Mau compensation claims. Its involvement is a sign that the campaign is serious and well-resourced, not that the legal case is strong.
The Mau Mau comparison is instructive. That case succeeded because it involved identified living claimants, documented recent events within living memory, a specific and bounded alleged wrong, and a defendant who held relevant evidence. The slavery reparations claim has none of these features. Leigh Day’s work for CARICOM has produced documents for political lobbying rather than for litigation, because the lawyers involved understand that the legal case for a state-to-state reparations claim cannot currently be brought in any court with jurisdiction. The legal work supports a political campaign. It is not evidence of a viable legal claim.
