Submitted by Thomas A. Harper
Were it not for this alternative, the impotence or cowardice of the local news media would have left us without an avenue through which to express legitimate concerns regarding the administration of certain sectors of the people’s affairs.
While we are aware that democracy is only a process through which we get to elect our dictators, we must exercise what freedom we still have to express our views, even as the press cowers behind its self-imposed iron curtain.
Be that as it may, in view of certain recent disturbing trends emerging within our judiciary that are excusably perceived to be bringing comfort to none other than the lawless, the following questions must be asked.
Is it now impossible to commit murder in Barbados?
Has the right to say no to sex on demand at anytime or under any conditions or circumstances been revoked?
Is saying no to sex on demand at any time and under any conditions or circumstances now reclassified as provocation?
Is it now the legal position that brutally killing a person for saying no to sex on demand at any time and under any conditions or circumstances be considered a provocation?
Is it now the legal position that saying no to sex on demand at any time and under any conditions or circumstances considered a provocation the magnitude of which evokes more sympathy for the killer than it does for the victim?
Why has it becoming increasingly and alarmingly difficult to distinguish the role of the prosecutor from that of the defense attorney?
Why do pleas accepted and sentences handed down for taking a life cease to reflect punishment that fits the crime, or come even remotely close to justice appearing to have been done?
Is plea-bargaining (which very closely resembles legalized perjury) that facilitates the perpetrators desire for a slap on the wrist not a slap in the face of their victims?
Is the ever increasing easy access to the plea bargain designed to eliminate the work required to prove the commission of the actual crime committed, thereby facilitating the desire for shorter work days and getting everyone home early?
With the ever reducing options of self-defense open to victims of criminal assault, what message do these disturbing trends sent to callous killers, and perpetrators of heinous crime, or is the message intended for us their future victims?
I am fully aware that posing queries of this nature is like tiptoeing through the an over active minefield, and that they are very likely to arouse more rancor for the person posing them than for the perpetrator of senseless brutal killings. However, someone must seek to raise awareness of a problem that left unaddressed will inevitably bring us very close to the Jamaica experience. Unlike the press, being neither impotent or cowardly, I have chosen to be that someone who dares raise awareness of these troubling emerging trends, and call for recognizable justice to be restored, and bear any consequences of so doing.
Hasn’t the system (legal) placed the media in a corner where it can’t speak about the system (legal and otherwise)?
Not slowly or steadily, it HAS been compromised. It has become quite clear that the criminal is received with sympathy in the courts, and the implication is that the victim probably “deserved it”. I also could not believe it when the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) dropped murder charges against a killer whose sole reason for perpetrating the act was that he was refused sex on demand. Does the same DPP go home and tell his wife that, as a mere woman, she has no right to refuse sex? That if she refuses sex she deserves all that she gets? Violent crime is now rampant in Barbados and they can quote all the visitor arrival figures they want – when they start to fall off again, don’t necessarily look to economic reasons for the problem.
Part of the orderly society which has been the foundation of Barbados society through the years has been the confidence in our law and order system. It is starting to become unraveled despite the protestations by the legal profession.
Is it we have become educated fools and we cannot see the weeds sprouting on the lawns?
Justice must not only be done, but it must be seen to be done and justice delayed, is justice denied.
It would appear that Dale Marshall and Ariel Brathwaite – two recent Attorneys General of Barbados, Owen Arthur – a former Prime Minister and Charles Leacock – current Director of Public Prosecutions have never heard of these two Axioms of British Jurist Prudence and if they have, they do not believe it and they certainly do not care about them. In short, none of these men care anything about justrice or the administration of it in this island.
Since August 2006, I have been trying to engage all of these men in meaningful dialogue about the administration of justice in Barbados. People are committing all kinds of crimes in this island – ranging from perjury to murder with impunity and these men and others to whom have been entrusted the sacred trust and responsibility to administer, defend and uphold the administration of justice on this island, continue, on a daily basis to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to the perpetration of the ensuing injustices and the pleas and cries of the victims and their families.
When they are approached, they become defensive, accusatory and with outright cowardice, hide and elope through back doors, leaving you waiting for them. They also promise to get back in touch with you, but never.
An email was sent to the Attorney General citing a case in England, in which a mother was sent to jail for eight years for trying to pervert the course of justice, while a female on this island was not even interviewed by the police and the DPP and the Attorney General see nothing wrong with or similar in nature or deed between the two females for similar acts. However, the Attorney General contacted the writer of the email and accused the writer of sending him rude and obnoctious emails.
How can justice be had on this island, when the very instruments required to do it do not exist on this island – Transcripts of the procedings of the Coroner’s Court. The lack of proper forensic facilities on this island and the absence of trained forensic personnel. How can we have forensic personnel and police officers who are not naturally curious and inquisitive or trained to be? Every time the police appear at a scene, it MUST BE SEEN as a potential crime scene. And even if it is not a crime scene, every effort MUST be made to preserve and recover ALL evidence. If one wants to have an easy life as a criminal, then Barbados is the place to choose to practice your trade/profession. Barbados is a holiday and criminal paradise. If the criminal justice and judiciary systems do not get their acts together, take their responsibilities seriously and vigorously persue ALL who will seek to persue criminal activities on this island and bring them to justice and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law, then it is only a matter of time, before the life blood of this island, Tourism, is very seriously and adversely affected and Barbados is plunged into the pit of economic chaos and ruin.
The water is never missed until the well runs dry. Barbados and ALL Barbadians had better awake from our slumber and sleep and stand on guard, before it is too late and we loose what it has taken over three hundred years to aquire.
Our elected officials, our judiciary, our police and every resident and visitor to these shores MUST come together, pool our resources and actively and robustly wage war on crime, criminals and criminal activity.
OFFTOPIC(you can skip if you so desire)
taken from Barbados Free press:-
Corruption and corrupt people now rule the BLP
The Barbados Labour Party is becoming a war zone with the ‘gang of five’ now trying desperate measures to destroy “the decent four.” They cannot get Mia Mottley or William Duguid because they have pedigree so the soft targets in that mix are Rawle Eastman and Cynthia Forde. We have already told you that Clyde Mascoll will be the BLP’s candidate in St. Thomas, while Douglas Skeete (George Payne’s cousin) will replace Rawle Eastman in St. James North., hence a scheme had to be hatched and carefully executed, to discredit Forde and Eastman.
Of the two, Rawle’s illness (serious diabetic) makes him the softer target. Everyone knows that Rawle Eastman was seriously ill for a long time and was even given long leave from Parliament, ever since his appearance on the call-in-programme sounding incoherent. Our reports are that he often has to rely on strangers when he fails to eat properly and on time and that makes him vulnerable to be exploited. George Payne knows that and enters Haniyfa Reza White, stage right.
Who is paying the legal fees for murder accused Haniyfa Reza White (the woman now stalking Rawle Eastman) in her counter suit against St. James North M.P., Rawle Eastman? Is it George Payne? Is it true that Haniyfa Reza White was one of the persons down to vote in the elections George Payne rigged? Is this then part of the master plan to discredit Eastman for pointing out to the country last year that George Payne was engaged in electoral fraud, election rigging, which is corruption and organized crime? Why would Owen Arthur and George Payne feel they would get away with this when the BLP benefits from taxpayers money, which give the electorate the right to demand accountability and answers?
Owen Arthur’s style is the ‘politics of fear,’ while George Payne’s is ‘the childish politics of spite.’ They both feel that once they take-out Rawle Eastman, no one else would be willing to stand in their way. George Payne has never been scared to let it be known that his cousin Douglas Skeete will replace Eastman as the candidate for the BLP in the next general election. Owen Arthur has also made it clear that Skeete will be the candidate. Everyone knows that you cannot enter Parliament if you have a criminal record, hence Haniyfa Reza White and her counter suit.
Now you understand why four months after the ‘BLP’s annual conference voting list was rigged’ citizens still cannot hear a single word from Owen Arthur about the corruption that George Payne engaged in. Frankly, Owen Arthur has turned a blind eye, as any poppet-leader would. But it has given the citizens of this country the proof that they need, that corruption and organize crime now rule at the BLP? Owen Arthur has never explained to this country why he put $75,000 intended as campaign financing into his personal bank account.
Under its new corrupt leadership, the BLP is preparing for an assault on the Barbados Treasury but it must be stopped. A group of men, who rigged the BLP’s election to get the result they want, are showing that they have no difficulty taking out Rawle Eastman or anyone who gets in their way, neither will they think twice about rigging a general election by re-aligning boundaries. What next? Will Owen Arthur create a $500 Barbados note and put his name and face on it? Who will they target next? The Commissioner of Police? The Governor of the Central Bank? Trade Union Leaders and Head of Private Sector Companies, who do not give Owen Arthur and his ‘gang of five’ campaign funds, to put into their personal bank account, again?
Who are the people Owen Arthur and George Payne are taking money from? Whoever they are, it is clear that they do not want to do business with Prime Minister Stuart of even Mia Mottley. That is why anyone who messes with Owen Arthur and his ‘gang of five’ are now becoming targets, since their financial backers have to protect their interest. With the assistance of Haniyfa Reza White, Rawle Eastman has now found that out the hard way.
there is no such thing as justice in real life it is an abstract nebulous concept that people who have been screwed have to argue about and make people understand what their problem is with proof etc based on some wishy washy abstract morals written on bits of paper as words in stuffy legal books
@CCC
Why would you repost when BU has a separate blog on the same matter?
Very interested to read your answer also do you do reposting on the other blog?
@ David
I read this for the first time here in this section. “Repost” allowed be to see it.
@CCC many thanks for the info.
So far not a comment from the legal eagles on BU…ummmm.
David
Is this the mahinery being used to justify the appointment of Mr Gibson as C.J
DAVID
You are the owner of the blog if you don’t like it just take it down.
It is your blog not mine.
Off Topic
The Arab nations are removing their despots from power, I hope the revolution spreads south to some African nations. There is a report that the son of the leader of Equatorial Guinea (his father seized power in 1979) has commissioned a $380 million yacht.
Further south in Zimbabwe, some people who were watching the demonstrations on TV in Tunisia & Egypt were arrested, word is that Mugabe plans to charge them with treason.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/africa-mideast/son-of-african-strongman-plans-380-million-yacht/article1924211/
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/world/africa/22zimbabwe.html
@The Scout
If you are going to be critical please be fair. Isn’t Thomas Harper the same person who submitted the blog Manipulating The Law To Accommodate Marston Gibson?
Why are there so many attempts to take this thread off topic? Could there be an agenda here?
What about the way Al Barack is being treated with respect to money owed to him by gov’t? The court can’t seem to demand that Barrack be paid in cash (or else), so he’s being told that he’ll have to sell the property which may prove to be a difficult task. Even if he’ able to find a buyer, he may not be able to recover all that was owed to him.
Would this ever happen to CO Williams? Would this ever happen to Bjerkhamn? Would this ever happen to any foreign owned construction comapany? How come it’s happening to Al Barrack?
@Zack
To answer your question if this could happen to COW, the answer is a resounding no. When Don Blackman was minister of works, he sent out the road works project for tender and did not entertain COW’s bid,(which was one of the lowest) COW took
him to court and won and was paid by government.
When one looks at the judicial system here you see the disparities clearly. A man killed his son, and has not faced the court to answer any charge but is allowed to walk around freely, he is probably not even in the island, now tell me if that can happen to any of your children or family if they were cleaning a gun and it ‘accidentally went off.
A man kills a woman because she refuses him sex and he gets a lighter sentence because he was provoked with what was hers and the right to say no.
A man is beating a woman in the heights and the police can’t enter into the gated community, but a society that has two sets of law, one for the Meads and one for the Persians, do so at its own peril. Enough said.
@Fran
So true. But we don’t revolt…we don’t gather by the thousands in Bridgetown or Bay Street to protest against what we see as wrong. We just quibble amongst ourselves and business continues as usual.
By the time Al Barrack gets any of his money he will be too old and stressed out to enjoy it.
What is happening to Barrack appears to be cruel and unusual punishment.
@Hants
I like how you put it, “cruel and unusual punishment”.
@Hants
We have a couple things at play here.
A flouting of the law, a court order/arbitration has been ignored. What does that say?
The sluggishness of the government to settle may not be about a lack of funds after all but a belief that Barrack is a front man.
It will be interesting to see government’s next move or should it be the court?
@David,
Did Barrack construct a building?
Is the owner using said building?
Did the Court award him payment for work on said building?
The answer is yes,yes and yes so front man,back man or inside man,
Barrack should be paid.
I invite Amused,Anonlegal and Jeff Cumberbatch to explain in eloquent legal terms if I am correct.
http://news.barbadostoday.bb/barticle.php?ptitle=NHC%20break&article=2991
From my understanding of the current state. Barrack has charge order on the nhc warrens building valued 72-77 million and the land in rices st. philip valued 12 million. the issue seems to be that barrack side argues they might not find a buyer for the building the current finical climiate and the land seem to have been developed on so there seem to be unknow what the current size of the land the. so thats why the lawyers placed an order to seize nhc property. the judge has argued that the current property if it where to be seized would result in little reduction of the debt and interfere with the statutory operation so it cannot not be approved. so i guess if barrack could find buyer that would be what the judge would argue is a reasonable amount for the assests barrack could finally get paid. until then the charge order remains in effect.
On the subject of efficiency in our court system, we keep hearing g that a judicial manager in the CLICO has to be appointed/approve by the court. Does this mean the application is before the court and awaiting a ruling or what?
@anthony…
With regards to your referenced link to BarbadosToday reporting of this decision…
Please correct if I’m wrong, but in a true democracy are not all decisions of the law courts supposed to be openly published for all to know?
Have we not learnt from our eastern colleges?
Or, perhaps, we’re all about to learn.
Very, very, quickly….
If you are interested in the Barrack judgment, it is below:
http://www.lawcourts.gov.bb/Lawlibrary/events.asp?id=805
Chris, take a look at the link below:
http://www.lawcourts.gov.bb/Lawlibrary/Judgments.asp
I would hope so christopher. ( some cases judgement are post on the courts website ) By the way the judgement was given on the feb 8 so i guess no one bother to look into until now.
I read the judgement above provided by Anonlegal.
It seems clear to me that Mr.Barrack should have been paid but instead Government has chosen to delay payment.
Not nise.
@Anonlegal… Thanks *very* much for the link.
I have read many of the decisions.
Just wondering… How can the Barbados Supreme Court of Judicature Court of Appeal (with three Judges Sitting) take nearly three years to make a simple decision on a matter originally argued five years ago?
Which case are you referring to christopher ?
anthony… Which case are you referring to christopher ?
http://www.lawcourts.gov.bb/Lawlibrary/events.asp?id=803
AKA “Civil Appeal No. 23 of 2006″.
As usual, I’m more than happy to be corrected….
Once the govenment pay Barrack others might come crawling out of the wood work with said claims and the government ain’t about to let that happen. Delay! Delay ! till Barrack becomes exhausted and keel over and dies. No Government gonna pay he !
Then it goes to his wife or kids or failing those the executor of his estate. It doesn’t just end like that.
What is the next move in the Barrack case guys?
Sir Richard is suppose to be a top lawyer, one must assume he has a strategy.
@Christopher
Who knows. I surely wouldn’t want to wait that long. If technology was moving at the pace of these lawyers/judges we would still be in 4004 cpus.
@David
The quick solution would be to find buyers for the warren building and the land. Once they can be found the judge can use the charge order to sell the assets and have the funds paid to barrack. Other than that we have to wait for government to either settle or pay barrack in full.
YUh tink so!, They too will die trying! Fuh these matter would continue until the lawyers become the beneficiaries
@anthony
Even if a buyer is found in the current environment the opportunity to realize close to market price will be a stretch.
In hindsight Barrack should have taken the deal offered by government.
@david
Well the judge will accept down to force sale price. Not that I see anyone coming to buy right now but it may happen. Hindsight is always 20/20 but there was still no guarantee that would have paid him . As stated in the document they did pay him 2.5 million but not a cent more. If this continues the judge will undoubtedly seize nhc assets and start auctioning away or place hold on all assets they are selling such as coverly and other housing.
If the court does that Barrack will still be the loser.
How would he be the loser david? they will sell/hold assets until the debt is satisfied. point 92 Corporation’s having assets worth approximately $418,383,105.39 and liabilities of $239,761,711.09. This meant, he submitted, that the Corporation’s net worth was $178,621,394.30 which exceeded the judgement debt, including interest. The problem will always be the loss of time nothing else right now.
I understand that government has put the case back in the court, i don’t know how this could happen because the government had already lost the appeal. Whatever happens with the Barrack case is going to be a poor reflection on the government, because a precedent would have been set, namely if one does not like the decision by the HIgh Court just don’t pay and keep putting it back in court. I thought that there was only one appeal to the appellant court and from there it would be the CCJ. This case is going to have someserious reprocussions on Barbados
@anthony
Meaning that it will take time to realize those assets, he will still have to wait.
Barack,sorry I meant George payne and dale marshal and crew deserve not one cent of taxpayer’s money.
That judgement/settlement was flawed and slap in the citizen’s face.
Barack knew he did not work for nor deserve these tens of millions of dollars and therefore he should have accepted the original offer by government,note this DLP government and not his pals in the BLP who at the time had money running out their ears,mouth and nostrils.
@david
ok understood.
@scout
Do you know under what grounds they trying to appeal now ?
There is no quick solutionto this matter . It is all about principle. With Barrack standing his ground . The government standing theirs . In the end this matterwould stayed tied up in the courts until kingdom come. Barrack has already shown his unwillingness to compromise with a settlement by the government, and the government was only too happy with his decision. If the government has gone back to court with an appeal . It may be to show reason as to why Barrack should not be paid because they have shown “good Faith” and reason with intent on paying him and Barrack refused .
Anthony
I’m at a lost as to the reason for the return to the court and about the legality of such after losing the appeal. As I said this is setting the SUPREME COURT’S decisions in jeopardy, since anytime one does not agree with a appeal court’s decision, one can use this caes to prolong payment, the International world is viewing this caes carefully and a Int company is willing to buy out Barrack Con and it’s debt just to get at the Barbados government for non-payment, this would make top Int headlines. THE BARBADOS GOVERNMENT IS PLAYING WITH FIRE, WHILE THE INTEREST IS INCREASING.
The citizens of Barbados need organize a protest march in support of Al Barack. One day it is he and next it might be you. We as citizens of a democratic country must protect our constitution and our judiciary. Without them we are under a dictatorship. Any elected government should never be above the law. How many of us have the GUTS to go out and PUBLICLY throw their support behind him?
a/c
How can a government stand its ground on an apellant court’s decision not to pay a client? Isn’t this bordering on arrogance and dictatoral conduct? When we blend this with what they are doing to appoint their man as C.J, this country is heading for some serious problems. Given that the Barrack matter was inherited, the DLP government had a good opportunity to sit with Barrack when he came to them by joining the membership of the party, but they were arrogant and evasive with the man as some senior members wanted to resolve the problem amicably, while others were holding out; this has lead to this present standoff which is NOT in the government’s favor and is beginning to smell funny. There is another inherited problem which will some blow up in this government,s face and that is the payment of millions of dollars owed to property owners whose property was compulsory taken, some for over twenty years, and no compensation recieved to date. This environment is not the type that a politically appointed C.J would like to come to office, he will be in trouble if he does and in trouble if he don’t side with this government
Scout said:
“I’m at a lost as to the reason for the return to the court and about the legality of such after losing the appeal. As I said this is setting the SUPREME COURT’S decisions in jeopardy, since anytime one does not agree with a appeal court’s decision, one can use this caes to prolong payment,”
Scout:
I will be honest, I haven’t been paying as much attention to this al Barrack matter as I should (I know, shame on me). However, I think you may have misunderstood a few things. From what I understand, no one has lost on appeal.
From my understanding, the High Court has held that the application for sale and seizure of goods (writ of Fiery Facias) was not an expedient way for Barrack Constructions to enforce the judgment it obtained (NB: this makes sense considering that the amount owed is over $60 million. It is highly unlikely that Barrack Construction would be able to liquidate $60 million worth of NHC’s chattels easily).
The High Court also seemed to have been satisfied that the NHC has made an effort to facilitate payment to Barrack Construction. You may be reading this and asking yourself – “what effort!?”
Well, it would seem that the National Insurance Board (“NIB”) had a prior charge over the property which was the subject to the charging order obtained by Al Barrack. This means that if Barrack Construction successfully sold the charged property, the money owed to NIB would be paid first. Whatever was left after NIB’s debt was paid would then go to Barrack Construction. The amount that would have been leftover would not have been enough to settle the entire debt and Barrack construction would still be owed money at the end of the day.
It would seem that NHC thought it better to pay off the debt owed to NIB so that if the Warren’s property is successfully sold, the proceeds of sale would immediately satisfy the debt owed to Barrack construction.
Justice Crane Scott has decided that in these circumstances the application for the sale and seizure of goods should be stayed (i.e. should be put on pause) until Barrack Construction has attempted to exercise its rights under the charging order which it has already obtained.
So in summary, this seems to be what is happening:
1. Barrack construction was awarded a lot of money in an arbitration.
2. In order to enforce the judgment that it obtained Barrack Construction obtained a charging order over various properties owned by NHC.
3. Barrack construction subsequently sought to obtain an order allowing it to sell goods and chattels owned by NHC
4. In the court’s view an order for seizure and sale of goods and chattels would not have been a very efficient way to enforce this judgment because of the amount of money owed.
5. The court also took the view that the charging order already obtained may very well be enough to enforce the judgment.
6. In light of the foregoing the court held that the application for the seizure and sale of NHC’s goods should be put on pause until Barrack Construction attempts to sell the charged property.
Sorry. I just took a glance at the case. I was trying to summarize from off of the top of my head and I said something that was incorrect in my summary.
Barrack construction actually obtained an order allowing it to sell goods and chattels owned by NHC. NHC asked the courts to stop Barrack Construction from exercising that right until there was at least an attempt to sell the the property which was the subject of the charging order (such a sale would have satisfied the debt owed).
@Scout
But didn’t the current Government offered Barack a settlement and he refused! Now the government is going to challenge his refusal in court!
@ ac
Barrack has no obligation to settle for less than the debt owed. There is no case if they are foolish enough to actually try to argue that in court.
In the current situation, a clever group of venture capitalists may very well buy out Barack, not even banking on eearly payment, moreso being after the interest that accumulates.
Imagine the debt in five years.
What other investment will be that sound and with a decent return, in this economic scenario?
Basically a medium term Government Bond with an asset as guarantee i.e. the building at Warrens.
So, if the Government does not have the funds, the CCJ will just award the building, whenever the venture capitalists decide to cash in.
Remember, the venture capitalists and companies see investment in Barbados as sound, if not, Emera and the venture capitalists that bought into Bank Holdings would not be so eager to jump in.
@ac
I don’t think NHC is challenging Al Barrack’s refusal of a settlement in court (at least I haven’t read anything that suggests that).
The only Appeal I know about it one by Barrack Construction against a decision by the High Court not to grant a charging order over the property located at Country Road.
Also, as I explained earlier, NHC made an application in the high court to stop Barrack Construction from exercising its right to seize and sell chattels and goods belonging to NHC until it (Barrack Construction) first exercised its rights under the Charging order that it had already obtained.
To get a better idea what is going one (or at least what I understand to be going on) consider the following analogous situation (you know how much I like hypothetical scenarios):
David sues Scout for $1,000 and the court rules in his favour. However, weeks after David has won his court case, he still hasn’t been paid and interest is running. He decides to go back to court to enforce the judgment entered in his favour.
There are many ways to enforce his judgment. He can obtain an attachment of debt order, an order for seizure and sale of goods, a charging order (the list goes on and on). However, after considering his options, David chooses to apply for a charging order over Scout’s house in Millenium Heights.
The house is worth $4,000 and it does not matter if David sells it at market value or forced sale value, the proceeds of sale will (without a shadow of a doubt) satisfy the debt owed.
Notwithstanding the fact that he has obtained this order David goes back to court and obtains an new enforcement order which allows him to seize and sell Scout’s car, truck, jewellery, Laptop computer, I-pod and priceless works of art. All of these items are worth $500.00.
Even if David sells all of these items, the debt would not be satisfied and interest would still accrue at $500.00 per year. Worse still, it may take years before he can sell every single one of those items. By that time the interest will have accrued significantly.
If David successfully sells the house the debt would be extinguished immediately and there would be no need to sell those other items. Also, the sale of the house would be a one time affair after which there would be no need to worry about accruing interest.
Therefore Scout applies to the court for an order to stop David from selling his jewellery, car and other belongings until an attempt is made to sell the Millennium heights property.
A similar situation is what is happening with Barrack Construction v NHC.
So that leaves Barrack like the dog trying to catch its tail! and the lawyers fighting on for their payday!
One ‘rule’ that we should remember, is that for every action, there is also an opposite reaction.
All that is being done to Barack, by drawing out this issue, is creating a karma that the Government will have to repay, tenfold.
Which among us would mind not being paid after working on a project for a customer?
Which one of us would not mind seeing said customer for example, build another house using another contractor, not yet having paid for our work (extension at Sherbourne).
No, quite simple, this is plain wrong.
And it is telling that ‘educated’ persons in Parliament do not understand the laws of karma and the universal laws of nature.
The payment will be more than just principal and interest.
It is how nature is made.
Doubt me?
We will see.
All I will say is that all the meddling in Middle East affairs for the past fifty years is now bearing fruit.
Sometimes the fruit is sour.
Justice, in many cases can be considered in the context of who is responsible for the injustice and how is it best remedied.
Locking someone up, in some cases putting them in better living circumstances than they may have in the society which they have wronged, is not always the best remedy. The victim does not benefit, the society has to foot the bill for board, food, energy, health care and security for the criminals.
In short the entire society pays for the injustice of each criminal.
With Al Barack, the ministers in charge at the time of the problem should be held responsible and liable to pay this man his dues. This government should table a law called the “buck stops here” making silly decisions the responsibility of representatives even after they have left public office. It would make them a lot more prudent in the delivery of their ethics and decisions. Perhaps make the decision makers liable for any amount over xamountamillions.
The only other choice is for each citizen to pay into an Al Barack fund, because that is what it will be if the “government” (spending our money) has to pay Mr Barack. We might as well just anti up $300-400 each, rather than borrow the money and pay interest, or sell the buildings and have to rebuild and rehouse the various ministries.
Now why should we do that when our employees (the previous administration) made a stupid decision that could be challenged in court, was challenged and then they didn’t sort it out early?
Peace
@maat | March 4, 2011 at 12:23 AM |
“…With Al Barack, the ministers in charge at the time of the problem should be held responsible and liable to pay this man his dues”
isn’t the very ministers who r now in opposition not partners with Al Barack? when Al barack gets his money, won’t they too be getting their cut?…i hope he DOESN’T get one cent of my money…thieves
Well, well, lookkee here.
Bar’s okay
By Tim Slinger | Tue, March 08, 2011 – 12:12 AM
IN A SURPRISE MOVE, the Barbados Bar Association has thrown its support behind Government’s plan to amend the law that would give the green light for the appointment of United States-based jurist Marston Gibson to become Barbados’ next Chief Justice.
In a move that contradicted a position taken a few weeks ago, the Bar Association in a Press statement yesterday said it supported the proposed amendment of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act.
“We will not, however, be drawn into the current debate [of] whether or not the legislation should be amended to accommodate the appointment of any particular person.
“The more important issue is whether the current legislation as drafted is in the public interest,” the release said.
The statement is a reversal of previous positions taken by the association’s new president Andrew Pilgrim and immediate past presidentLeslie Haynes,QC.
Pilgrim, in an interview with the SUNDAY SUN three weeks ago, said it would be wrong to amend the law to facilitate Gibson’s appointment, adding that “it looks funny when you do something like what we are doing now.”
When contacted last night about the Bar’s turnaround, Pilgrim told the DAILY NATION: “The council and membership of the Bar appeared to be divided on the issue of whether this law should be changed to accommodate one man.
“There is no objection to Marston Gibson the candidate. It is however clear there are other larger issues which the Bar has agreed on.”
On the eve of the association’s last elections, then president Haynes, who did not seek re-election, also voiced his concerns on the subject, charging that Government would have breached the law if they amended the legislation to assist any particular individual.
However, the Bar in its statement described the current legislation as “unduly restrictive” and not in the public interest.
Under the current law, an applicant must have practised law in the Commonwealth to be eligible for appointment as either Chief Justice or a judge of the Court of Appeal.
“We are also of the opinion that this restriction is an anomaly which could well serve to disqualify eminently suitable persons from holding such office without good and sufficient reason,” it added.
The amendment of the act will be read a first time in the House of Assembly today. It is expected the Opposition will not support the amendment.
By the way did anyone listen to former Attorney General, retired judge and a host of other titles being cut by VOB yesterday?
Sometimes one has to wonder.
He was about to say that the Bar is a politically fractured body, if we are to judge by the context of the conversation.
Moderator Dennis Johnson seemed surprise when he was told by the provocative ‘anti-american’ that Sir Fred was cut.
I’m very surprised at the turn around in the Bar Assoc however, it can be a step in the right direction, I hope they don’t have ulterior ideas. I still think the matter should have been cleared up, namely the law changed before he was approached, if the report is true, the Bar Assoc has helped the government out of a vert sticky situation; I hope it works.
You know, most members of the Bar are reputable, honest people of integrity. Unfortunately, as in any barrel of apples, there are a few rotten ones and it is these that get reported on.
Given that, the decision of the Bar comes as no surprise to me at all. The young lawyers who still have their dreams and aspirations of a proper justice system are likely the ones who welcomed the change in the Act. It is they who want to see JUSTICE work properly. It is they who are outside of the old-boy network. And so it should be – they are the future.
Having said that, I continue to assert that, since Marston Gibson has held a practice certificate in Barbados for well over 20 years and has been a law lecturer at the UWI and has worked in a common law country, he qualifies to be CJ without the law being changed. On the other side of the coin, suppose Attorney General Holder of the United States or someone like him, was offered the job of CJ, it seems inconceivable that such an appointment could be blocked simply because he has not practiced in a Commonwealth jurisdiction for 15 years. Clearly the law needs to be changed, but not, I submit, to accommodate Marston Gibson, who already qualifies and for whom I see no impediment of any kind.
Once Mr Gibson is confirmed coupled with Andrew Pilgrim heading the Bar, I shall look forward to forward-thinking changes in the justice system that will place Barbados once more in the position of being a world leader in the administration and administering of justice. I hope that justice will also be made more accessible to the man in the street and more cost-effective.
It is an enormous job, but one for which the right people are (or soon will be) in place. Then we will all be watching carefully to see what progress is made. I, for one, believe that the progress will be swifter than anyone imagines. It is going to be very interesting and possibly even very exciting.
At last!! Common sense has prevailed at the Barr Association. I have long argued that the law as written is not relevant in present day Barbados and indeed discriminates against Bajans who have served in other jurisdictions.
“Unduly Restrictive”, got that one right
David / Amused;
The spin by the Bar association, and one which I think very few would disagree with, is that the amendment of itself, is a useful one and improves the current situation re. the appointment of a Chief Justice or Judge in Barbados. They are staying clear of the propriety or otherwise of the timing of the amendment. That is a very sensible position and one which says volumes about Mr. Pilgrim.
I wish Mr. Gibson well. Perhaps in 2 years time we should review the progress that will be made in revamping the Justice system here. The decision by the Bar Association is a small step in the right direction.
I think what the Democratic Labour Party ought to do with this Barrack issue, is to leave it alone until The Barbados Labour Party who caused the problem in the first place returns to office, whenever that is.
Let the Barbados Labour Party deal with it, that is if Barrack does not die before then.
Well there we have it. Carson doesn’t believe in justice in timely manner.
@anthony. Appears you are right. CCC seems to think along the same lines as the courts – that justice delayed is NOT justice denied. Like Anonlegal, I have not been following this case and so I do not think I am in the position to make an informed comment. I am just waiting for CJ Gibson to take over. We live in very interesting times.
Has parliament discussed the change yet ? Didn’t follow it this morning. Right now their discussing title deeds legislations.
All of a sudden lawyers and the Bar Association are no longer the devil incarnate on BU.
CCC
You are making a mockery of the Supreme Courts in Barbados, a judgement was handed down, an appeal made and the government losed, there is only one other placeto go and that is the CCJ and they did not use that option. What seems to surface is that the Government seems to think that they are above the highest court in the land, in the mean time the interest is mounting. Whether Barrack dies or not the money is still due to his estate and has to be paid. What is happening is that Barbados (not the BLP or the DLP) is looking really bad internationally and it can have a negative effect when we want to borrow money in the future.
I suspect that this is one of the most difficult issues the new C.J will have to deal with when he takes up office.
We listened to some of the debate yesterday in parliament and it certainly appeared that Denis Kellman spoke in the capacity as Minister of Drainage.
@The Scout
How will this be an issue for the CJ? He doesn’t have to pay anybody.
you see what i tell you. here it is that people trying to seriously analyse a very important issue which could have some impact on the integrity of jurisprudence in barbados and carson c. cadogan can only inject some political diatribe into the equation. i hope whenh the bubble in the dlp ex[plodes, he is equally willing to comment without bias.i wonder why he has not commmented on the dlp’s election retreat with the leader in absentia.
David
As soon As the new C.J is sworn into office, Al Barrack will petition the court to demand the payment of the judgement meeted out to him. At this time the C.J will either instruct the government to pay by a particular time or refer the matter to more hearings, if he then overturned the judgement of the Supreme Court, he would have dug his grave very early. This DLP government is playing with fire.
@The Scout
Your position is contradictory. In essence you have implied that the judiciary as presently constituted is bias.
@CCC…… “I think what the Democratic Labour Party ought to do with this Barrack issue, is to leave it alone until The Barbados Labour Party who caused the problem in the first place returns to office, whenever that is. ”
That means next year then Carson, even you are having doubts on how your present government is dealing with this matter. Good to know that you do possess something inside your head.
David
You can call it what you like, the way I see it this new C.J has a tough job at hand, if he goes with the government, perceptions would be that that is what he/she was brought here to do. To go against the government would be seen as a slap in the DLP’s face. My position is not contradictory, in essence it means that the new C.J, if he/she reverses the Supreme Courts decision is a creature of the present government
islandgal246
Whether we like it or not, what this government is doing is disrespecting the rulings of the HIGHEST COURT in the land and this should not be tolerated. This opens the Supreme Court to be the laughing stock, especially foreign companies. Let’s say a judgement of substantial amount goes against a foreign company and thet refuses to pay, can they thewn be sued? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
@david
it does seem he is still minister until stuart says otherwise.
Did any discussion of the amendment happen ? I didn’t follow the whole day but i know most of it was taken up by title deed , the Clearwater guarantee , followed by various bill to implement tax measure spoken too in budget and subsequent.
@Scout
At the current stage of the case the CJ cannot interfere unless he rules there where errors in make the july 2008 judgement that upheld the arbitration ( he may only do so if gross negligence is observed) . To say such now has occurred will tarnish his reputation and his impartiality so I would hope he does no such thing.
Scout said:
“You are making a mockery of the Supreme Courts in Barbados, a judgement was handed down, an appeal made and the government losed, there is only one other placeto go and that is the CCJ and they did not use that option.”
Scout, maybe you know something that I don’t. I have not read that an appeal has been determined in this matter. In fact, as far as I know the Government is not even challenging its obligation to pay the money.
I agree with Anonlegal. His information is the same as mine.
Put Scout on ignore he looking for ways to attack Dlp when Blp, not sure if Owen or Mia faction, to be blamed for hundred million we owe joker barrack.
The Bar Association is a comedy club. they do a 360 on Gibson what a laugh.
Andrew Pilgrim is a actor he should be making movies at Bongo Lights studios.
When u got lawyers like George Payne and Leslie Haynes the legal profession cannot and will not be trusted. When we see Bar Association go after the dozens of thieving lawyers then we might change our minds in the meantime becoming a lawyer is fastest way to stealing other people’s money i my self thinking about going to law school.
I left richmond with a birth certificate,
So was the bill discussed or not ? Still haven’t seen anyone answer to that.
@anthony
Still waiting.
It seem the order paper for monday has the bill to be read a second time with notice being given for the bill in gazette for monday with no date for the first reading. I guess if they push they might get it in before before end of month.
@ anthony!
You seem to be very interested in the ammendment. Haven’t read your tale on it. Would be interestedto know
My take is that he seems to be very worthy candidate for chief justice and that I hope after all this he can truly reform the justice system. I wish he did come under better terms as changing the legislation first then selecting would seem like a more fair process. As due to carelessness on some person part no due diligence was done and he sat in limbo for couple months. Further from that the change they implements in the statue could have been done and pushed in parliament before last year was over. it seems there is lack of any speed to get him in the position. I expect him to take up office sometime next month maybe not the first but by the end at the latest if they don’t bury it again.
@Anthony
I guess most would agree on Maristonworthiness. However what is in dispute with those in opposition is to wether the law should be changed. How do you respond?
If the law was change before announce his appointment i would have no problem with it. As it does bring some doubt as to the impartiality of the judge based on the government changing the law to suit him and would in return I suppose expect something back. If they reopen the position again so that the candidates that where excluded before could now gotten the position it would remove some doubts. As is I doubt the government will do such and it will be mark that will be stain on his career. So should the law be change yes. Should the law be change now to suit the candidate no. Leaves to many questions as to if the judge can truly be impartial.
@Anthony
Now withstanding the lawas is.Any judge that the government chooses even abidding by the law meaning one who has practiced within the law would still be seen as not being impartial and and a friend of government. That being the nature of the beast(politics)
@ac
That it is but changing a law would give greater fear of impartiality. Maybe it is time we take up the suggestion by Pilgrim and have a judicial commission appointed from many lawyers, judges, politicians.
@anthony
Could it be that we could have a tainted judicial commission. As it is it is all about who knows who.
True any appointment could be claimed to be corrupt. At least this way it be more broad approach than a single person and we can hope for a more fair approach than any single person deciding it
Anonlegal
I’m speaking under correction but I’m almost sure this matter was appealed by the government, not sure if it was a BLP or DLP government but it makes no difference which party was in power at the time. I vaguely remember that there was a steep rise in the payment because of the interest. This is a matter for both parties but the BLP is now in government so they have the hot potato and the longer they hold it the hotter the potato gets.
@Anthony.
the judicial commission could be problematic. For on it could be heavily tilted in favour of one party or another. Meaning that it could present a problem if most of them on the commission have a party leaning which can be bias initself. THere are other issues like conflict of interest. THose who had done favours for each other. Sooner or later that commission would be scrutinized and seen as ineffective by the public at large
So maybe we should just do island wide referendum for all things now ? with advance of technology the cost of actually do it can be shown to be rather inexpensive and all voices would be heard.
a/c, anthony
The real problem is that after four decades of nationhood, politicians are still very immature and if the head is so, the body is so too;bajans need to grow up
heard on news yet another lawyer on fraud charges for stealing client funds. Who is he or she? Are there any honest lawyers in Barbados. David go investigate and start a thread. force the ball less Bar Asscoiation to act.
@Anthony
The appointment by the PM is not as bad as it seems. THe judicial system is the long arm of the government and the CJ appointment like any other branch of government should be appointed by the PM.Lawyers and judges are a clique and should remain neutral on such matters
if the law has to be changed to accomodate the chief justice designate; then it is clear to me that the offer was made without due diligence undertaken and the govt should come out and admit their errorr and say sorry to the public of barbados and apologise to mr gibson for the gaffe; and not try to gain political mileage by fooling the public that the change in the law is to the benefit of the public. the decent thing to do is to admit their mistake. and the govt seems to be making some mistakes in the area of constutional law as it relates to good governance. first, it was mr ezra alleyne who questioned the procedures used in appointing mr brathwaite on the occasion of the illness of the prime minister; then there is a deafening silence concerning the holding of the position of minister of drainage. has mr lowe returned to work and if so, is mr kellman still paid as acting minister and if so, is there someone holding the consett bay post of ambassador to caricom with special responsibilties to solve the fish crisis?
Looks like Friday will be an interesting day to listen to house debate.
Far as i understand kellman is still minister of environment. Yes friday will be interesting. They really pushing hard. Does it have enough time to pass thru senate and get gazetted for april 1. It looking like they might still miss the date still.
Is Mr. Gibson actually currently sitting on the bench in the US (Which I take it means that he is a full judge in the US) or is he a Judicial referee, a Judge’s assistant? If he is a judicial referee and not a judge is that section of Mr. Chris Gollop’s article somewhat misleading?
he is court attorney/referee and is still listed in their directory
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/courts/10jd/nassau/supreme_directory.shtml#Referees
the headline in the nation of tuesday, march the eigth boldly proclaimed “LAWYERS BACK MOVE TO CHANGE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE ACT” two things came to mind. one was the spineless fourth estate.(lord. how i miss Mr Gladstone Holder) could i not have been treated to a more realistic apportionment of the facts judging from the pronouncements of the president of the bar association about a week ago. was the decision a unanimous one as the headline sought to display? was this a case of partisan politics rearing its ugly head? how difficult would it have been for the reporter to investigate the composition of the vote and post a headline which would have effectively capture the mood of the meeting which gave support to the iniquitous amendment. the second thing which comes to mind is the spineless capitulation of the bar association to an amendment on hindsight despite its supposed merits which in my view was brought for the wrong reasons at the wrong time. i think a caption titled “ABOUT TURN BY THE BAR ASSOCIATION ” would have been more apt given the president and Mr Ralph Thorne’s previous comments on the matter.
You quite right ruth, I think this was majority opinion of the council and no one else. Barbados today reported the dep. opposition leader as saying no one ever called to ask his or his firm opinion in matter nor other lawyer he contacted.
toac- the problem in having the appointment of the most important post in jurisprudence in barbados in the hands of a politician and a single politician as well is very dangerous and compromises impartiality in all respects. the other issue is that if the appointment turns out to be a badone, the country is still saddled with the appointment when the pm leaves office be it after one day or several years. justice must only be done it must be seen to be done.
@David. Interesting lead story in the Nation today. Seems that Sir Roy Marshall has weighed in on the subject of our justice system and he is not a happy little camper. He has, in fact, echoed the essence of what BU has been saying for a long time. He also appears, without actually coming out and saying it, to give support to the appointment of Marston Gibson. That is one major lash at the justice system from a man who is undoubtedly Barbados’ most important legal scholar. Until now, I suspect that many Bajans had no real concept of how grave the situation has become. BU has not been understating the seriousness at all. In fact, it is more serious than most non-legal people realise. Something HAS to be done……and fast. Otherwise it will adversely affect the whole structure of our financial sector and of our everyday lives. The sooner Mr Gibson can get here and start work, the better. I can tell you now that ultimatums have been delivered to some of the judges and legal proceedings are even now being prepared against some of them. What sort of message does that send to foreign investors? But the judiciary has left no other option open to litigants.
@Ruth
Then what would be your suggestions, AS it is the legal system as is is corrupt and they having to choose one from among themselves would be suspect!
yes, justice in barbados has always been compromised against those who can least afford and has been more compromised now moreso with the hindsight after the fact amendment. i note professor roy marshall’s comments that barbados should look for the brightest and best to serve wherever they are. for those in aggreement with the proposed amendment, please note that he did not say outside the ambit of the law.
@Amused
Indeed and thanks to you and the others who have posted or emailed us info to give this important matter on the front burner. Here is the Sir Roy article you referred to in the Nation. As you say ordinary Barbadians have no clue and the ones in the know don’t want change because of narrow political interest. Remember he President of the T&T Law Society echoed concerns as well yet we have those who would stick their heads in the sand.
Amused;
Your oft quoted thesis about the judical system in Barbados and the need for it to be thoroughly revamped has again been corroborated by a leading impartial authority. Kudos to you.
My problem has been that you and others seem to see Marston Gibson as a messiah, riding in on his white horse, with a mandate to change the system and with all the necessary brain power, money and support from the Government to do the job.
Besides the vaunted capabilities of Marston Gibson, what else is necessary to effect the desired changes? Doesn’t some strategic support from his colleagues in the judicial system come near the top of the list? The statement from the Bar association suggested that such support might be forthcoming but since then it appears that that support was somewhat contrived. Will that support eventually improve to be adequate for change given the way how current senior legal people are beneffitting from and using the current system?
My other problem was how could we be so certain that Mr. Gibson, though eminently qualified for the job at the “brightest and best” level, was similarly qualified at the level of showing that he has the guts to take on and defeat the current legal establishment as well as to the “stick to it” level. How do we know that when serious problems occur, as they must if he truly tries to fulfill the mandate you have given him, that he will push and persist and try everything necessary to succeed and not run to New York or some other common law country as he appears to have done before?
As I’ve said before, I wish him well. It appears that the legal system in Barbados needs nothing less.
@checkit-out
It is all about judgment by those doing the recruiting and leadership. It will be the remit of Gibson to lead. What should be obvious, and has been confirmed on both sides of the divide, Gibson is from outside the inner circle gives him the opportunity to deliver. From where BU sits he will have some influential players to provide support.
First & Foremost our ‘constitution’ (HAS BEEN) compromised countless in the past, it is the ignorance and lack of knowledge of SOME bajans that has led to this. We do not cherish our history so we do not even know what our constitution consists of. Bajans died for the establishment of the constitution & Independence from colonial government. Both parties have done it to facilitate the financial stake holders and investors in their campaign, in many cases Building Permits, operating Licenses etc. It is the norm now but my view is that the law needed change for a while now however i did not expect the change would come in the form of Political Gifts to individuals who stand outside of the constitutional requirements for chief judge, mind you, clerical officers in the service who have acquired degrees and are held back by minor requirements. The constitution needed change but for the right reasons and not the interests of private & (Equal) pressures.
“Bajans died for the establishment of the constitution & Independence from colonial government”.
When did this war of independence occurred?
correction occur
maybe the politician is inferring that the riots of 1937 was for a constitution & independence instead of demands for social equality and labour reforms ?
… or maybe to the 1651 invasion of Barbados by Ayscue resulting in fighting and dying.
First to get hit was an Alleyne who supported the Parliamentary forces. I believe he held the rank of Colonel.
The story goes he was coming ashore in a boat when he was shot by the Royalists.
The Parliamentary forces won but weren’t strong enough to hold the island.
So the two factions signed The Charter of Barbados at Oistins.
This predated the American Declaration by over a century.
In fact, you will find Bajans were involved in the drafting of the American Declaration, and of course George Washington spent time here.
Both documents probably have their genesis in the Magna Carta.
I was told that Erroll Barrow always said Barbados was independent since 1651 and the 1966 declaration was a mere formality.
So yes, Bajan blood was shed to gain independence.
This formed the Charter of Barbados. This charter gave Barbados the guarantee of new government with a governor, an elected assembly, and freedom from taxation without local consent.
I don’t really thing that is independence. They UK still governed our defence and security. without those there is no independence.
@checkit-out | March 18, 2011 at 8:45 AM | I am not for one moment suggesting that Marston Gibson will turn out to be the messiah of the Barbados justice system. We don’t know and only time will tell.
What I AM saying is that he has the POTENTIAL to be the messiah of the justice system. I also happen to sincerely believe that he has the WILL to do the job.
However, all I or anyone can do is to wait and hope and see. But that is true of anyone who may be appointed as chief justice. And do you seriously think that we will not all be watching him to make sure he does the job?
What I am ALSO saying is that it is high time that those with narrow political agendas threw those agendas away and stood solidly behind Chief Justice Gibson to facilitate the changes that are urgently required – IN THE INTERESTS OF BARBADOS!!!!
@ruth arnetta | March 18, 2011 at 5:41 AM | I am not sure on what basis we are blessed? with your legal opinion, but I, respectfully, disagree. The government has moved wisely and prudently to head off the meritless challenges and time-wasting challenges to the appointment of Chief Justice Gibson, as articulated by you. The government has decided to put the interests of the majority above the meritless political posturings of the minority.
@islandgal246. Always a pleasure to read your submissions.
anthony
If you check you will find that the British Army was not Garrisoned here until 1780, 150 years after settlement, and only because the French were making a nuisance of themselves at the time.
Until then defence was handled by the Barbados Militia which would have seen action for example when they drove off the Dutch admiral de Ruyter in 1655 from their fort where the Hilton Hotel now exists and again a century later in skirmishes with American privateers on the West coast.
The expedition that captured Jamaica had a strong Bajan contingent and again more than a century later, Barbados contributed to the armed forces that took Guadeloupe in 1794.
So make no mistake, Bajans shed their blood in the defence of their country. Most certainly, England assisted as well.
Amused,
I really hope for you sake and for Barbados’, Mr Gibson to quote you”What I AM saying is that he has the POTENTIAL to be the messiah of the justice system. I also happen to sincerely believe that he has the WILL to do the job.”
He attended Foundation with my brother, a little ahead of me. I hope he does well. But I can tell you trying to be different in the public service is no mean task. I foolishly left the private sector at one time in my career and joined the public sector.
Needless to say, I did not stay very long. I was told we have done things this way for ever. I tried to make suggestions on improving the ways things could be done more effectively and met bare roadblocks. I was then despised, talked about, they had problems with my clothes, the car I drove and they even came to see where I live.
And so, I could only wish Mr Gibson luck in trying to change the status quo. As soon as he tries to make changes, the roadblocks will go up and they will tell him he just came and he aint from ’bout here. Believe it or not. The public sector is a strange place.
@Prodigal Son: “The public sector is a strange place.
At the end of the day, who pays for it?
@Chris. You are, of course, quite right. However, Prodigal Son is taking a realistic view and he is right too, in my humble opinion. I think,though, that the winds of change are blowing strongly at hurricane force and it must be clear that not only the public is fed up with the justice system, but a majority of the lawyers too. And if blood (metaphorical) has to flow, it will be that of the Registry and the Judiciary. I suspect that Sir Roy’s comments have started the blood-letting. Notice how there has not been a single word from the Spratt, whose initials I understand are DS? Game, set and match – and BU, not any other, broke this major story. Kudos to David!!!!
The amendment to the Judicature Act second reading is currently being tabled by the Attorney General.
You can listen to CBC 100.7 to follow.
@Amused
I think we all hope whoever is appointed to the CJ position can clean up the judiciary. If he/she can is another matter entirely.
@John
Unless security as actually vest in barbados by legislature the point is mute if we police our selves or via foreign powers. They can be overruled at any time making us not independent.
Someone needs to teach this government TACT sooner rather than later. And why is that Suckoo is being told by clerks in Parliament what the Opposition is going to do?
Because the clerks are Dems. Suckoo is one of the biggest disappointments in modern politics.
Mr Gibson C J of Barbados
Mr. Gibson CC of West Indies Cricket Team
These Gibson face big tasks
We need to pray for them
BLP currently attempting to filibuster.
How an astute lawyer like the PM could let a dentist outdo him in an argument about law?
@enuff
I just tuned in. What are you referring to???
@Enuff
It is obvious the BLP is prolonging the matter for political gain.
Division was call on an adjournment motion tabled by Payne which was defeated 19-9.
@ david
but isn’t the government rushing it so that he can be appointed before the acting cj appointment has to be extended again.
@anthony
We know that they are but will adjourning the debate change the opposition argument? The BLP is on record as stating it is against the appointment.
true but regardless of what they say on the issue it will go thru the parliament.
David
Is it not funny how the government is trying to deny the fact that Mr. Gibson is the CJ designate?
@enuff
unless he said he no longer whats it after all this nonsense.
@enuff
The debate is to amend the Supreme of Judicature Act to change the word ‘commonwealth’ to ‘common law’. That is what is before the house. We all know what triggered it but the procedure which guides parliamentary debate precludes reference to Gibson and the appointment.
actually that is incorrect david that added sub paragraphs for the common-law separate from the commonwealth sub paragraphs. They could have added commonwealth and/or common law jurisdiction and we could have done this last year.
@ David
Stupse.
Done. That is all that counts. Time to welcome CJ Gibson home. Now, let us see where we go from here.
Let’s hope this new ALMIGHTY C.J Gibson lives up to all you law adjusters expectations, now the pressure is on him to deliver. For government’s sake, the Barrack affair would go in favor of them, also too Clico will be given a lifeline and not only policyholders will suffer but all barbados because the government will bailout the company in order to protect certain persons who find themselves creatures of a shady person like Parris. I seriously hope that things improve in this country, because we might have thrown the last dice.
Sounds good to me! Now how about some integrity legislation.being the next order of business . As Mia said the people must have confidence in government to avoid anarchy and controversy. Passing Integrity Legislation would do so at this time to restore the people confidence. A Few more hours burning of the midnight candle would be a good thing to restore such confidence.
@Amused
Isn’t it incredibility hypocritical that the BLP members of parliament would speak to principle on the issue of appointing the CJ Gibson but would turn a blind eye to using the same yardstick when a politician was appointed to the position?
They console themselves after the fact that Simmons did his job impartially and or he had retired from politics.
anthony | March 18, 2011 at 7:29 PM |
Unless security as actually vest in barbados by legislature the point is mute if we police our selves or via foreign powers. They can be overruled at any time making us not independent.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
History speaks pretty loudly, in fact louder than words ….. nothing mute about it.
The BU household congratulates and welcomes Marston Gibson to the crucially important job of Chief Justice of Barbados. We have confidence that he has the goods to make a difference, even his detractors agree he is a good man.
BU will continue to direct our voice on legal and other matters. No longer will CJ Gibson or others have to worry about the actions of some being done in the dark of the night protected by the fear of the fourth estate.
To Dale Marshall who referred to the blogs, newspapers and talk shows having their say, as far as we are away only one* blog championed this matter.
BU thanks all those who participated in this debate, your views were read by many with stakeholder interest.
@ David
What about the hypocrisy of the government to argue that they are changing the legislation so as to not deny a Barbadian from working in Barbados? The same government that had no problem unlawfully terminating the employment of many Barbadians since coming to office because they were not card carrying members. Repugnant!!
@enuff
There you have it, the reason why being politically partisan is a nonsense.
One can only hope he does an outstanding job to show the legislation was amending for the right reasons. He has an uphill battle to contend with and we offering him all the support we can.
@anthony, whether Gibson does a good job or not the only thing that really matters is the principle that NO BARBADIAN should be prevented from doing a job in Barbados but a Pakistani or Englishman would qualify.
Mia finally broke her silence last night on what she advised late PM Thompson when she was consulted on Marston Gibson’s appointment.
She indicated she gave her concurrence but it was done on the ‘presumption of regularity’.
http://www.nationnews.com/articles/view/committed/
“I don’t think I am the only person who can perform the duties as Chief Justice, I have some ideas about how to make a substantial difference in Barbados. I am not arrogant, but I am confident that I can make a difference and that’s why I remain committed to it.”
One can only wish him luck and support for he will need it.
@David. Hats off to Mia again. She has made sure that she remains loyal to her political party, while not expressing a legal opinion on Marston Gibson’s appointment or, indeed, committing herself in any way, except to say, conditionally, that she agreed. Masterful! If she keeps this up, she stands a very good chance of becoming PM one day.
Mia is brilliant. PM Stuart Can learn alot from her. Her independence shines through out her speeches. Applause! . . I really admire her spunk and tenacity.If she continues on this road which she has masterfully paved out also one which by detrementand slight of hand by some of those indifferent BLP party members she would become a PM of Barbados. People are looking for a third party which she would not form as her allegiance to the BLP she is not going to severe. However truth be known her truthfulness would be her crowning glory and would win the hearts of many inboth parties. At this point she has nothing to lose
The DLP needs a good leader, perhaps Mia can try out for that job!
Prodigal Son
Mia has little chance of leading the DLP when Sinckler is pulling at the bit to lead the party as soon as later this year.
to ac- your comments re the marston gibson debacle suggesta your are not quite familiar with the partisan political climate in barbados where supposedly intelligent persons allow their political affiliation to cloud their judgment and influrnce their opinions. do not allow yourself to be side tracked. the govt made a booboo with the connivance of an uninformed opposition to recommend mr gibson for a post contrary to the laws of barbados and rather than apologising and nominating someone else wants to compound the folly by changing the law to accomodate their error and trying to inveigle me into beleiving that theiy are doing it in my interest. i aint too bright but i aint that foolish either. it is instuctive to note that the law was tampered with by both regimes six times and no one touched the issue. i would have thought that mr gibson would have bowed out of such a volatile political situation to keep his integrity intact.
to ac- mia is the most brilliant politician in barbados at the moment. all she has to do is wait. she is not the first or the last political aspirant to endure such a fate. that is the nature of politics. as mr sandiford said-’ politics is no sunday school’. sk mr sandiford himself, mr mascoll, mr estwick, mr kellman, mr st john. it’s all about timing. today for you-tomorrow for me. there is no doubt that miss mottley’s turn will come when the gang of four with the possible exception of mr arthur lose their seats in the next election asnd she has the opportunity to lead the party free of barnacles.
@ruth
I amnot seeing it as a partisan issue , Be that as it may . It think the intent in the long run would out weighed the negativity.The problem you have brought to the forefornt is plausible. However with or without the appointment , the law is outdated and need to be change. The world wide web has made it easier for people to be in many places . I can assure many lawyers and professional have access to the Internet and can use it as seen fit in their professional lives .Not withstanding Mr. Gibson. meaning his job would not have been limited to any one place.For sure he must have used such technology to direct or op ion in other jurisdictions
to ac- how long was it known that the law was outdated and needed to be changed? only because of the gaffe with mr gibson’s appointment. just can’t understand how a person with your seemingly analytical skills can allow yourself to be hoodwinked like that.you are missing the point. yes, perhaps and note i sy perhaps the law might be in need of change but not under the influence of hindsight.
There are NOT 800 medical doctors,not 800 dentists,not 800 (civil,electrical,mechanical,IT) engineers,not 800 architects,not 800 qualified “agriculturists”etc.etc.Can anyone explain why there are 800 lawyers and this number will increase by about 40 next month and again next year by about the same and on and on it goes. Isn’t it dangerous to have an excess of poor hungry starving lawyers in the society, each wanting to drive a BMW and to live in Millenium Heights? Who do you expect them to prey upon ? A starving dog will turn upon its master!Do you really think the new chief justice will make a difference if he holds to the view that there are only 7 or 8 incompetent and dishonest lawyers out of a total of 800 ?Do you really expect change ? Wake up !