Chief Justice Designate Marston Gibson
Dear Mr Gibson,
Now that it is confirmed that you are to be the new Chief Justice of Barbados, the BU family has some questions to put to you. These questions are not political in nature, but solely about the judicial system which you are to head.
- At present, when counsel wishes to commence proceedings or serve documents such as statements of defense, affidavits etc., it is required that they have these documents sworn at the Registry, obtain certified copies and then serve these by personal service on the other parties, either personally or on their counsel. Do you anticipate streamlining this by, perhaps, allowing such documents to be sworn before any attorney-at-law licensed to practice in Barbados, filing copies with the Court/Registry and then effecting service on the other parties by mail or fax, using an affidavit of service sworn by the person who posted the documents/sent the fax, as back-up?
- At present, small claims matters are cumbersome. Do you anticipate introducing an internet system by which these matters can be filed and argued and, only where necessary, involve appearances? In other words, simplify the process of small claims so that litigants in these will not be disadvantaged if they choose to represent themselves, rather than incurring the (sometimes greater than the claim) expense of being represented by counsel?
- It is clear that the case management system does not work. What changes do you anticipate introducing in case management?
- There is a considerable back-log of cases before the courts (both civil and criminal). How do you propose to get rid of this back-log in general terms?
- There are many cases that have remained part-heard for years. The usual excuse is that the judge has been assigned to assizes or has too heavy a case load. What measures do you propose to introduce to solve this problem?
Related Link:
A Dispassionate Clarification On The Appointment Of Chief Justice Designate Marston Gibson
- Some judges exceed the timeline of 6 months within which to render judgment, sometimes by as long as three years and more. Is this a matter that you propose to address aggressively and what measures do you propose to take? What measures will be put in place to deal with habitually recalcitrant judges?
- Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is not used much in Barbados at present. How do you propose to bring ADR to the attention of litigants as a viable alternative to a full court procedure? Will there be a system of appointment or licensing by the courts for arbitrators? Will the decisions by these arbitrators be inspected by the courts from time to time to ensure that they meet the standards of justice that the public has the right to expect?
- There have been many justifiable complaints against certain counsel by their clients. In some cases, these complaints have been upheld. Yet, the counsel concerned have continued their practice as if nothing has happened. What measures do you propose to introduce to deal with the professional standards of counsel and to impel the Barbados Bar Association to take more aggressive action?
We hope that you will find it possible to respond to some of these questions at least. Your appointment has raised the expectations of many people in Barbados that a moribund justice system will be resuscitated under your leadership. However, we do understand that these are early days and you may require time to settle into the job. Nonetheless, we would be grateful for any assurances and reassurances you can give us that we will once again enjoy an effective judicial system.
Barbados Underground 
Appollo 13;
I heard Tony Marshall and It seems to me that he was reading an email from a listener. What I found very strange at the time was that he did not question the “facts” provided in the email. Such as is it true that a law was changed to allow Mia Mottley to practice? What law was changed? Who were the other lawyers that benefitted from the change? Which administration made the change to the law? What are the real parallels between that alleged change to the law and the current one that would change the law for one man?
However, taken on the whole, I do not find that Tony Marshall is blatantly partisan in the call in show. I think he is probing and sometimes goes overboard, but generally he is quite fair. I also consider David Ellis to be an excellent host for the programme. To my mind Dennis Johnson is the best however.
Amused re. your post of Jan 27, 2011 at 1:13 PM;
Read my full post.
With due respect, I still maintain, as a layman, that if Mr. Gibson is appointed in a situation where the only impediment to his appointment was a provision of the Law and that Law is amended by the DLP, without BLP support, to remove that impediment, he must of necessity be beholden to the DLP, whether he wants to accept it or not.
However, if the change in law had the full blessing of the BLP he would only be technically beholden to “the Government” which would be his employer and this would therefore be of little consequence except in any putative case brought by persons against the government (Wait, are’nt there several cases like that? Including the famous Al Barrack one? Would the manner of his qualifying for the job suggest to some lawyers that he might have compromised himself in almost any ruling he will give on cases involving the government.)
It still looks like a slippery slope to me. But what do I know?
The only solutions to the problem to me are:
Don’t amend the law and use the strategy you suggested sometime ago on this blog to appoint Mr. Gibson and take your chances on challenges re. the legality of the appointment.
Rescind the offer of the job and move on to the next most qualified candidate.
Amend the law to apply for future candidates for the post of CJ.
Why do we keep saying that Gibson is “qualified”? Is that not the point at issue? If you mean academically qualified, there are no such requirements in the law…
Amused;
On second thought, my use of the word “beholden” was probably wrong. “Beholden” suggests that the “beholdee” operates as if the agency from which he received favourable treatment is somehow holding a whip that they can use to punish any transgressions or have other carrots that might be witholden if the “beholdee” doesn’t do what they require. In the judiciary evidently, once appointed, a CJ would, by statute and tenure, not have to fear or look forward to any such action and therefore he should not be seen as being beholden to anyone.
But would the persons who might bring an action against government see it in that light? Or would they fear, even if mistakenly, that the manner of the appointment of the CJ might presage the possibility of a ruling against their favour whatever the merits of their case?
Remember in Law appearances count for much.
@checkit-out. I understand your point, but respectfully disagree. The Government of Barbados is the party in power. The other side is the opposition. It is not the government. Now the opposition, if it wins enough seats, can become the government (always does become the government). What you are proposing is a situation desirable if one is amending the Constitution, but for the amendment of an act, that is the function of the government – the government in power with the mandate from the electorate to rule. The Act in question has been frequently amended in order to better serve the people of Barbados. Why not now?
There is no doubt that Gibson CJ’s appointment does not need a change of the Act, to most people. However, why should the government leave the door open to a legal challenge through the courts and possible appeals, all taking YEARS, while the justice system remains dead and gone to the detriment of Bajans of all walks of life?
At the time that it was known that Marston Gibson had been offered the job, Mia was leader of the opposition, not Owen. Mia has been very silent on the matter, but it is generally known that she was consulted on behalf of the opposition. There would be a record of such meetings. I note, however, that it was only after Owen took over the opposition that questions were raised about Marston Gibson.
It is all political – an effort to score points. At the expense of the justice system. That really is sad.
Amused;
Thanks for understanding my point. It is not often that people say they do.
It seems that I have been labouring under a misconception for a very long time. That is, that the Government is constituted by both the Party in Power and the Opposition and that the Government is not the DLP at one time and the BLP at another. Indeed, it seems to me that the Jamaica Government, in the Manatt affair (re. lobbying for the drug kingpin in the state – Dudus Coke) seemed to have the same understanding of the Government vis.a.vis the Party in Power as you have.
I wonder, if that view is accepted by the legal fraternity.
There is no doubt that Gibson CJ’s appointment does not need a change of the Act, to most people.
I think most people think the act needs to change to allow him in. Goverement actions to change to law even if under extreme caution would make people think the law need to change to let him in.
Amused, These most people do not include the AG, the President of the Bar, Sleepy Smith, the former AG, nor any of the serious legally trained contributors on BU… Apart from you, who else thinks this?
@Anonus. There are many and they must be allowed to speak for themselves.
@Anonus…
Would you agree, or disagree, with the following statement:
The Barbados Justice System is fundamentally broken.
Why are they so quiet though? All of these “many” are afflicted with silence in spite of the currency of the matter, leaving you to carry the fight?
I do not agree Chris. What would give you this impression? Fundamentally broken indeed!
@Checkit-out
Your point is suspect because that would mean David Simmons would have felt obligated to his old boss?
@Anonus: “I do not agree Chris. What would give you this impression?
Oh, I don’t know…
How about three Bajan judges allegedly being sued for not executing their duties in the time appropriate?
How about Jamaica being able to censure Barbados for our ineffectual courts?
How about those many away who have to hire local lawyers to get business done here, only to claim themselves ripped off with absolutely no effective recourse?
Perhaps. Just perhaps. It’s time things are done a little differently here in little ‘d Bim.
Let’s say that when Mr Gibson is appointed C.J. the barbados government put back the Al Barrack case back in court, and the new C.J sides with government, what would be the general public perception? Al Barrack can then appeal to the C C J and if the reverse the decision, what will the government do? pull out of the C C J ? The whole scenerio will make Mr Gibson look very silly and the governmet shakey .
David re. your post of Jan 27, 2011 at 4:26 PM;
At the risk of sounding like an apologist for the BLP. The two cases are miles apart. In the current case there is a projected amendment of the law to accomodate the prospective candidate (even if it is likely to be an improvement in the law) while there was no such amendment in the case of David Simmons, as far as I am aware.
However, you are right re. the fact there would have been a perception that David Simmons would be “beholden” to the BLP on many grounds, perhaps the least of which would have been the manner of his appointment. Therefore the BLP would have acted egregiously in making that appointment in my point of view.
But two wrongs don’t make a right.
One shouldn’t approbate and reprobate in practically the same breath, on the same general topic as Brandford Taitt would have said.
But I have been noticing that the current administration is engaging in numerous bad practices which they deplored in the BLP administration but are justifying them on the basis that the BLP did it so its allright for them to do it too.
Appointing David Simmons almost straight from an AG post, and being clearly identifiable as a BLP top man, to a CJ position was wrong. However, It is even more egregious to change the law to accomodate the new CJ and the David Simmons appointment cannot justify or be used as justification for the current proposals.
While we’re debating over Mr Gibson, the interest on the Al Barrack payout is increasing and no one is taking note of that. It must be around $ 85 mil right now. How will the government get this albatross placed by the BLP off their necks; not by appointing Mr Gibson. Remember Mr Barrack has world courts he can go too, we’re playing with fire or maybe now it’s dynamite.
The Scout: “Let’s say that when Mr Gibson is appointed C.J. the barbados government put back the Al Barrack case back in court, and the new C.J sides with government, what would be the general public perception?
Let us all please consider another possibility…
The CJ decides against the government.
What then would be the public’s perspective?
I, personally, *so* hope this comes off.
Just so we all can watch the fireworks….
Checkit-out
I’m disappointed in David for such simplistic reasoning, yes, the BLP was wrong but show be the law or act that they broke, however, the DLP is amending a law or act to please themselves, THIS IS WHERE THE MISTAKE COMES. Has the act/law been amended a few moths ago and then the appointment of Mr Gibson was announced, there would have been some objections but not as forceful as it is now
But two wrongs don’t make a right
Not only two wrongs don’t make a right, the DLP was VERY critical of some wrong doings and they promised us that there will be a change, we though that change was for the better but the perception generally is that it is for the worse. Come on DLPites you can do better than that.
Christopher
I too, I’m eagerly awaiting this scenerio to unfold. To your question, I would say this (1) in case the new C.J goes in favor of Al Barrck, it would make him look real genuine but the public of Barbados will be face with further taxes to offset the backpay for Mr Barrack (2) in case the new C.J goes in favor of the government, then the perception would be that that is the reason he was so appointed, this would obviously not be the end of the case, in fact this would open a new can of worms. In either scenerio, the government is going to get the nasty end of the stick. While it was no fault of theirs, it was inherited, they knew about it and they should have had a plan to deal with it; that is the harsh reality of government.
Christopher Halsall re. your post of Jan 27, 2011 at 5:17 PM;
You said
“Let us all please consider another possibility…..The CJ decides against the government. What then would be the public’s perspective?”
I suspect that a significant number of the public would conclude that there was such a strong case against the Government that the CJ couldn’t rule otherwise and be taken seriously as a learned Judge.
The problem will lie in where both sides have a good case and the perception that the CJ might not be impartial in his ruling is what would then matter and what we are discussing.
@checkit-out
The reference to Simmon’ appointment was not to make an all fours comparison but to show that a person who might have been perceived as beholding to Owen, his boss just a few months earlier, was appointed CJ. It was to rebut that part of your ‘beholden’ argument.
This matter carrys great international implications and can adversely effect the Barbados qualifications on the World Scene. This means this country can quickly move from being highly respected to being highly disgraceful. This needs some level of maturity to overcome this problem. This thing about, it’s a BLP problem or you have the government now so deal with it, will not solve the problem, meanwhile the money keeps growing and growing. SHOW YOUR EXCEPTIONAL QUALIFICATIONS MR GIBSON
David
If you slap me in my face for no apparent reason and I stab you, would I be right for so doing? Further more wouldn’t it be true that my act was worse than yours? Therefore it stands, the BLP was WRONG but they didn’t break or amend any law to have Mr Simmons appointed; in Mr Gibson’s case, this is what has to happen and THAT IS MORE WRONG. Plus this is the party that the majority of bajans voted for to clean up acts like the one with Mr Simmons, now they have surpassed the BLP’s nastiness.
Scout said:
“Let’s say that when Mr Gibson is appointed C.J. the barbados government put back the Al Barrack case back in court, and the new C.J sides with government, what would be the general public perception?”
Wasn’t the Al Barrack matter already decided by the Court of Appeal?
I thought so, but I could be wrong.
If I am right, the matter cannot be adjudicated again at that level. In other words, the new CJ would never sit on a panel of judges asked to decide that matter.
Anonlegal
Can the format be changed? New C.J new laws for appointment; new C.J new laws of appeal. Remember U.S law, O.J was aquitted of murder but he was brought on a lesser charge and found guilty, with the new evidence pointing towards him being guilty of the first offence. In barbados we drive on the left side of the road, in the U S they drive on the right side of the road. Very often I see tourists here in Barbados driving on the right side of the road, my first remark is they are from the U S. My point is it is difficult for a person to do one thing in one country and change immediately to do something different in another country; even bajans who stay away for a while find it hard to adjust. Remember that Mr Gibson, you will be driving the vehicle of justice in barbados remember which side of the road you are legally bound to drive.
David re. your post of Jan 27, 2011 at 5:58 PM;
Yes, David. I understand that your post was an attempt to rebut my “beholden” argument and I’ve accepted that David Simmonds would have been considered as beholden to Owen Arthur who would have been the prime mover in engineering that appointment as well as being otherwise beholden to the BLP because of his long association at senior levels with that Party.
However, as I tried to point out, The DLP shouldn’t condemn Owen Arthur for appointing David Simmons on the grounds that there was a strong potential for his rulings to be partial to the BLP given his long association with the BLP, and then appoint someone in a manner that would leave a blind man on a trotting horse to conclude that they were taking actions that would inexorably result in that person being willingly forced into a position that would make him technically beholden to them.
As I’ve hinted in an earlier post, this DLP administration has taken some positions which seem to be at variance with upholding the mores and standards of a good government. A case in point is how David Thompson handled the CLICO matter. David Thompson was CLICO’s lawyer for several years and would have been privy to many of its dealings. When the CLICO matter erupted, in my view, the right thing for him to have done was to recuse himself from any input into the matter and let one of his other Cabinet Ministers handle it. Instead he set up an oversight committee that apparently had no power to stop hemmorhaging of funds from CLICO to senior Staff members while it sat. He also apparently did not stop CLICO management from thumbing its corporate nose at the Instutution set up to regulate Insurance companies. He refused to put CLICO under judicial management as other countries had done and He himself went around the OECS making promises that could be interpreted as suggesting that the Barbados Government would underwrite some of CLICO’s debts.
Yes David both incidents were badly handled.
@Amused, point taken, it probably is moot. No hard feelings I hope, you are learned in the law, not I.
That said, what is to be is to be. I have become philosophical in my later years. It is all irrelevant, because we will all have move onward soon enough, even our current generation within 60 or 70 years, fully and comprehensively.
Kind of morbid maybe. But, I have learned to distinguish what is important from what is not.
And I am sure that Mr.Gibson is a great gentleman and a scholar. I really wish him well whatever the outcome.
The only thing coming to mind as I post this, is that while we shall have moved on, our youngsters hopefully will be living on, and theirs too.
What legacies we leave by our actions, shall hopefully be worthy.
I think there is an element of inexperience in the Civil Service which may have contributed to the mess.
I think there is also an element of fear of their political masters which has crept in over the past couple of decades.
Older heads have now retired taking a great deal of the training and exprience with them. They also took with them a keen understanding of the law and that internal something that made them try their best to guide what are essentially ignorant politicians …. kind of like a Sir Humprey who actually acted for the good of their country.
Appointing a CJ is not something that happens every day.
All previous appointments are political appointments but the last one probably knocked the stuffing out of the Civil Service. It is difficult to understand how it happened. I think members of the Civil Service who should have stood their ground did not, …. or they just did not know what ground to hold.
Let me give an example.
Nicky Sealy at BWA was described to me as the only man in Barbados who would and did tell a PM … Tom …. to kiss his “expletive deleted” when Tom wanted to develop the Belle, a Zone 1 catchment.
Nicky Sealy was an engineer who as I understand it spent time coming to grips with the use of the act which appointed him and applying it to do his job in the job to which he was appointed.
He used the law to defeat a lawyer because he understood how it applied to his job and his responsibilites.
I can’t think of a single character in the Civil Service, and by character I mean someone who would go toe to toe with a PM and win based on the law.
I think they have been steamrollered into acquiescence over time and prefer to let the bosses take responsibility because the bosses say they will when in reality the responsibility is theirs to advise and direct the MP’s.
If you wanted to pin blame for the apparent error in selection on who would you pin it?
Isn’t it too simple to say David and Mia consulted and they should have known…. or should there also be a component to the consultation which comes from the Civil Service?
I keep thinking of the program “Yes Prime Minister”
Here is a light hearted version of an appointment of a Bishop.
That’s it…blame the Civil Service for Thompson’s incompetence.
@Spratt. I happen to, mostly, agree with John. His comparison go the Yes Minister series of on point. You see, although civil servants are appointed by government, they do not change when the government changes. So the DLP has 14 years worth of BLP civil servants to contend with. And if the DLP remains in power for 14 years, any incoming BLP government will have the same problem with DLP civil servants.
However, the appointmen of a CJ is very different. The Government has, wisely in my view, gone outside of the country to a highly qualified Bajan who has never been seen to have any political preferences in Barbados and who has been courted by both sides of the political divide. That, to me at least, demonstrates the desire to uphold the absolute necessity of judicial independence. For instance, the Governor General has to be above politics. Have you noted that when the Governor General is out of the country, the CJ acts in his stead? That speaks volumes for th absolute necessity of having someone who, himself and his court, are above politics. I recall one judge being overturned in Barbados on appeal simply for saying that his job was to carry out the wishes of the Government. This statement was roundly condemned by, and I speak under correction, Williams CJ, whose clear direction was that the function of a judge was to uphold the LAW, not the wishes of the Government. The learned judge had misdirected himself in Law by making such a statement. His judgement was tainted.
Given the preoccupation and participation of almost all lawyers in Barbados with matters political, it makes total sense to ensure that the CJ (at this stage and in order to redress the balance of the blatantly political appointment of Simmons) is from outside the box. Believe me, over the course of the next years in order to revive a terminally ill justice system, there are going have to be a lot of changes. And, Sir Humphrey-like (with thanks to John) we know how civil servants embrace change.
The point for me is that the Civil Service can be a force for good but it requires a level of competence, understanding and commitment which I fear may be missing …. it may have gone home with the old guard!!
Sir Humphrey demonstrates in a funny way that the Civil Service can be incompetent but he also illustrates the possible process/mechanism which appointments could follow!!
We need to be careful who we blame because there are alot of hands in creating this mess.
While the buck stops at the PM, we need to remember that he has his advisors too!!
David Thompson’s attention in the previous year would have been held by his illness.
The background process of making sure everything was ok with the appointment seems to have stalled during his illness so we now have an issue.
We have problems which may go deeper than any politician we choose to name or blame.
Sir Humphrey has helped me understand this because he demonstrates how the Civil Service could work and brings home to me the role it plays in any Government appointment!! ….. probably totally untrue, irreverant and funny … but he makes me think about a process, not one or two persons.
I am more inclined to think of a faulty process in the appointment.
When applied to more mundane activities than appointing a CJ, it scares me more than any incompetent or corrupt politician could ever scare me.
Whoever wrote the script for “Yes Prime Minister ” is a genius.
I looked at the three parts of the episode, absolutely fantastic.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Most Barbadians will agree that most of the lawyers in Barbados are thieves. It is an unfortunate statement but it is so. Ask many of those who live overseas that buy properties here who are ripped off or ask some of the real estate agents, they will tell you of horror stories in getting their money.
I would be most surprised if the judicial system changes on the appointment of Mr Gibson. He will come up against a system that has done things a particular way and will not divert from that path. So if he is appointed he will either pack up and head back up north out of frustration or he will join the ‘club’.
What is distasteful about this issue, is the attorney general who was Freundel Stuart at the time, would have had to advise Thompson on the criteria for the job. Mr Stuart had a right and a duty to research the requirements and to inform Mr Thompson on those requirements.
He being an attorney either overlooked this requirement or because of arrogance or ignorance dismissed it, but also the attorney general’s office has legal advisors on staff as well. How comes all these people missed this important requirement. I believe that somebody in that office pointed out this requirement. This is the civil service.
So either because of arrogance or ignorance they went ahead and offered this man a position and then found out that there is this requirement.No wonder you are now hearing all sorts of justification for the blunder from a lousy attorney general.
My question is always with all the ‘ so called’ brilliant legal minds bout hey, ya can find one individual who could fill this post, or is it ‘dat dey too thieving’. LOL
I see that there have been a number of excellent posts, particularly by John, Amused and Fran, on the likely or possible involvement of Public Servants in the Marston Gibson debacle.
As a former Public Servant myself it strikes me that the general public is largely unaware that over the years inputs from public servants into certain matters is often very limited especially if such matters have significant political overtones. Some of this stems from the fallout of actual occurences such as a permanent secretary retiring and becoming a Minister in the following DLP Government and, not to be outdone but a few terms later, a Head of the Civil Service also retiring and becoming a Minister in a recent BLP Government.
The result of such happenings , I think, has been a general distrust of the advice of some senior Public servants by members of the incoming Political Directorate, and many senior public servants who are perfectly honest and would give good non-partisan advice, are accordingly left out of the loop and their advice distrusted for little or no good reason.
I therefore would not be surprised if there was little or no input into the choice of the new CJ by public servants, perhaps not even that of checking CV’s, etc. The Ministers and their personal Aides probably did all that they considered necessary, passing a fait accompli to the relevant authorities for rubber stamping. However, there is also a possibility that there might have been some little input by relatively inexperienced new public servants who might have been recently promoted primarily because of their perceived political allegiance to the new Party.
I surmise this as it is impossible, if the background checks were even cursorily done, that David Thompson and Freundel Stuart would not have recognized from early that there was one thing lacking in Marston Gibson’s qualifications and accordingly programme the implementation of the necessary corrective actions. If the requisite background checks were properly done we would not now be in this debacle. The law would have been amended a good while ago and Mr. Gibson would have assumed the post.
There are several signposts that have signalled the decline in the perceived professionalism of Senior Public Servants vis a vis their relationship with their “Ministerial masters”. Most of these have come about because of small steps taken by Ministers to abrogate greater authority unto themselves, often with little push back from the Public servants. The Group of Permanent Secretaries and related Grades have never taken it on themselves to defend their members in any disputes with Ministers. Permanent Secretaries are transferred at the whims of Ministers without any pushback. Ministers take on administrative roles when they are only supposed to have a policy role. etc. etc.
Public Sector reform should not exclude looking carefully at the conditions of service, expectations, qualifications and relationships of the most senior members of the Public Service with MInisters. Salaries are not everything.
@checkit-out: “Public Sector reform should not exclude looking carefully at the conditions of service, expectations, qualifications and relationships of the most senior members of the Public Service with MInisters. Salaries are not everything.
Hear! Hear!!!
@checkit-out. Your comment is well thought out and presented and is certainly food for thought. However, I have it on excellent authority that the requirements of the Supreme Court Act were discussed by the three parties concerned and opinions taken from very senior counsel outside of the political arena. All are and were satisifed that the legal opinion given here on BU in an earlier blog is correct. I believe personally that the government is changing the Act, simply because it is prudent to do so, in order to avoid frivilous legal challenges and appeals that might end up at the CCJ where the appointment of Marston Gibson would certainly be upheld. Also, going forward it makes sense to update the Act in this respect for the future. Thus is the circus of a legal challenge and its inevitable defeat avoided – decisions that might well point an admonitory finger at Barbados’ judges. Thus can something be done to remove the legal system from the vacuum it is currently in so that the justice and, more importantly even, the access to timely justice, for all Bajans, can be put in place. This, rather than having a broken system that has ground to a halt continue as it is for some years to come.
So while I appreciate and thank you for your insightful comments on the civil service, I respectfully disagree with your conclusions on this particular issue.
I have never had any political axe to grind, but it has not escaped me that, while the BLP was under the leadership of a responsible lawyer, there was no objection. Why now that it is under the leadership of a non-legal politician has it become an issue? Look at the timelines from the point where David reported here on BU who the next Chief Justice was to be.
I have some legal training, Amused. If the advice of three Senior Counsel was taken (and I cannot imagine who these would be) why would the Government fear an action that could be disposed of within a few minutes?
I thought I read somewhere that Cumberbatch or one of the other lawyers here on BU described that opinion as nonsense.
An interesting related story:
Australian Judges Heading to Belize
Written by Shane D. Williams
Thursday, 27 January 2011 00:00
Part of Australia’s MOU with CARICOM involves the provision of direct assistance to individual countries within the region. Belize has reached out to Australia for support to the judicial branch of Government. Australia agreed to send two judges to join the judiciary which will be a huge lift to the undermanned bench.
Last week at the Opening of the Supreme Court the Attorney General, Hon. B.Q. Pitts, explained that there was a delay in the selection process of those judges. Philip Kentwell, Australia’s High Commissioner to CARICOM, was able to give us an update on that situation. He said that a small number of judges have expressed interest in the job. However, “the hiccup has emerged where the experience and expertise of the applicants does not match the Terms of Reference that Belize has requested.”
Kentwell said that the government is now working with the Commonwealth Secretariat to address Belize’s case load processing concern. He said, “I am encouraged that we will be in a position to address it at the Commonwealth Nations Ministers of Justices meeting this year.”
@Anonus: “I have some legal training…
@Anonus: “I thought I read somewhere…
QED….
@Anonus. I, with great respect, disagree with Jeff Cumberbatch. Something wrong with that? I could point out that, according to the Barbados Bar Association’s website, Jeff is not a member – he is not named. I am not aware, but I speak under correction, that he is or was ever a member of the Inner Bar. However, I am sure that, like Marston Gibson, he is licensed to practice law in Barbados. I am also very sure that he is a competent attorney and legal lecturer. So what? I disagree with him in this case.
Given the discussion about changing the law have a look at what’s happening in St. Vincent.
http://www.nationnews.com/articles/view/protest-in-st-vincent/
Here is Tony Best’s article which is a rehash of what we have discussed on BU.
David:
Thanks for posting the article by Tony Best.
He brought up a number of points that are interesting; eg. the oblique comparison of the appointment of Puisne Judge Douglas from Jamaica to CJ of Barbados by Errol Barrow (Puisne means Junior) as compared with the projected appointment of Judicial Referee, (i.e. Judge’s Assistant) Marston Gibson by David Thompson.
The duties etc of a Judicial Referee are given in this article
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/referee
Look for Judicial referee.
The article doesn’t seem to suggest that the typical judicial referee is normally called on to carry out any of the functions that many on this blog are suggesting will be Gibson’s mandate although I have absolutely no doubt and am confident that Gibson would be as successful in fulfilling David Thompson’s mandate as CJ Douglas was in fullfilling Errol Barrow’s mandate.
I agree with Tony Best that “With or without Gibson the law should be changed.” But I have some difficulty in agreeing with him totally in his “Yes, special pleadings make bad law. But that’s not what’s happening here.” I think this whole comedy of errors originated as a special pleading even though It is not likely to make bad law.
@checkit-out. You are, of course, quite correct as to the meaning of puisne in the original Norman French. However, in judicial terms, it means an ordinary judge and is used to distinguish such a judge from the head of the court. I still think that your reservations are misplaced. However, if I did not believe that Mr Gibson already meets the criteria for his appointment, I would agree with you and Mr Best.
Bravo Tony Best. This is the first article where someone in the press has explicitly said that the law should be amended to accommodate the CJ designate. All the other opinion pieces as well as the articles which address this issue focus on the letter of the law and the judgment of others who believe that this technical requirement is sacrosanct. One is led to believe that the framers of this legislation were imbued with unimpeachable knowledge which rendered their reasoning above reproach.
Mr. Arthur and Mr. Marshall have both said that they are opposed to any legislation which would amend this requirement, they should tell us why they oppose it and explain how Barbadian Civil Society will be harmed, they should explain how the Judiciary will be irreparably damaged if this law is amended. They should tell us why they prefer the status quo.
Let me add to what Mr. Best said about some Bajans in the “Diaspora”. Barbados is a country without any natural resource save the brain matter of some of its native sons. If some of these “sons” decide to cast their eyes beyond its shores to further their career/.education or experience that absence should not be held against them if they are to be considered for a position in the land of their birth.
The next time that Mr. Arthur shows his face at a gathering in New York, London or Toronto informing the audience that their skills (and money) are required to help build their homeland don’t be surprised if someone in the crowd asks him if he considers us full citizens or citizens of “his” convenience.
Barbados is a country without any natural resource save the brain matter of some of its native sons.
…. and yet its native sons (… and daughters) could get caught out on so simple and yet so serious a matter and look like a bunch of clowns!!!!
God help Barbados
@ Sargeant, I am sure you have noticed that Overseas Bajans are still sending money and barrels to their families in Barbados but most are now choosing to retire overseas.
It is sad that instead of focusing on the accomplishments of Marston Gibsons some are doing everything they can to keep him out of Barbados.
Drug lords, thieves and vagabonds are more welcome to some in Barbados because they provide cash flow to defense lawyers.
Breaking news in Bimshire.
nearly $1/2 million was in the account However, la di la di la, a mere $143 000 was left in the account.
Read Nationnews.
$1/2million quiz.
Next hot topic on BU.
Also read “Thankful for a second chance”.
Scary.
@Sargeant | January 29, 2011 at 10:10 PM
@Hants | January 30, 2011 at 12:14 AM
Both, well said.
There is a very interesting matter developing, it has to do with Al Barack. On reading the article in the Barbados Today newspaper, I smiled at the fact that this same thing was told to me a few days ago and I laughed it off, since I thought that the matter had exhausted all it’s local avenues, and this was confirmed to me on this BU blog. However, it seems this matter is back in court, could it be that that is why this government wants to have this new C.J in place immediately ? and what will be his ruling on this matter? Can we take the SUPREME judgement from this court serious if our government is playing politics with such judgement?