A follow up to your third last question, may I also enquire from Mr Gibson, what steps he would recommend to deal with a number of attorneya-at-law who have cases penting against them for amount other things fraud and if found guilty what compensation the victim will receive.

Questions like the one on filing and service can be very easily put in place simply by adapting the Ontario Rules and Forms.

The small claims question, if something like that is done, will see the end of the careers of a lot of small lawyers and, as we are as a nation, overlawyered, this would be no bad thing at all.

Case management. That is correct. It is not a good system. Once again, we ought to be looking to the Ontario system, which would suit our needs far better.

I am going to pass on the next three, as I have already said quite enough on those points, and pass on to ADR. ADR has become, in England and Wales at least, one of the new money makers for lawyers. I was amazed at the number of law firms that now have whole departments dedicated to ADR. I was even more astounded by the number of young lawyers fresh out of law school who wish to specialize in ADR. When that happens, you KNOW there is a lot of money to be made from it – WHICH DEFEATS THE OBJECT OF ADR, which is to reduce the time and expense of court cases. I am equally amazed at the number of lawyers who, even without having had the advantage of studying the merits of a case properly, will start to suggest ADR. ADR at its best can save massive amount of time and money in achieving justice – and at its worst it can merely transfer the money that would have been spent on a court case directly into the pockets of lawyers. It also provides a very good source of income for lawyer who act as arbitrators and their pay for fulfilling what is in essence the role of the judge is FAR higher than any judge is paid. Therefore, I think that the question of Mr Gibson about ADR needs considerable expansion later on. ADR properly regulated, can be invaluable. Badly regulated, it can be a rip-off. And would anyone in their right mind give your average Bajan lawyer a shot at something that is a potential rip-off?

On the BBA and its lack of effectiveness in adequately disciplining its membership, agreed.

@David. I hope Mr Gibson will answer these questions, or at least some of them. More and more Bajans are moving to the blogs for hard news. Indeed, it seems to me that the only investigative reporting available to Bajans about Barbados, comes from the blogs. A society is weakened if it does not have a strong press and the only strength on the press that I can see, comes from the blogs.

Typical Leslie Haynes. He owes his QC to Owen Arthur, rather than to merit, so he owes someone. However, David, let me assure you that the majority of the Bar welcomes Mr Gibson and Leslie does NOT speak for the Bar. You may recall that Leslie tried his best to give the impression that the CCJ negative report on Barbados’ court system was attributable to Acting Chief Justice Moore, instead of to David Simmons. His motives are highly suspect and his tactics completely transparent. His comments in the Nation, like the Nation itself, are dismissable as political agendas. That he should use his position as chair of the BBA is reprehensible and, hopefully, will lead to the BBA booting his ass out.

Sorry, a correction, not the constitution but the Act of the Supreme Court

@Barman. I agree with you, sad to say. The justice system has completely broken down in Barbados and all the region knows it. This nonsense about objecting to the perfect man for the job taking over as chief justice is just unbelievable and holds us up to international ridicule. I can tell you now that I would not be at all comfortable with a candidate inside the box. I maintain my position that there is no need to change the law to confirm the appointment of Mr Gibson. However, going forward many years to the time when Mr Gibson retires, I see the change as forward-looking and desirable. It makes local candidates focus their attention on the justice system, rather than currying political favour. We have seen in the recent past the most blatant abuse of political favour and it has resulted in the demise of the legal system and the total lack of effectiveness of the bar association whose head unilaterally seeks to give the impression that he speaks for all. Well, he doesn’t and his self-serving, politically-motivated comments are nothing but hot air. And the public knows it.

But you can expect things to hot up here with every Simmons and Arthur supporter seeking to spin the situation in order to persuade all that the justice system is in fine order. I don’t think that proposition will have many takers.

BU, does it not strike you as strange that not a single lawyer has as yet come out in support of amending the law? Are they ALL politically motivated? Or is it you?

For the UMPTEENTH time, I am bringing to the attention of the public the unacceptable behaviour of VOB Moderator TONY “PHONY” MARSHALL.

He, just a few minutes ago, abused, disrespected and denied WELL-KNOWN VOB caller “The Senator’ in the most disgraceful way, such that “The Senator” could not make his valued contribution regarding Mr. Gibson’s appointment!!

Marshall, who is clearly functioning as a political representative for The DLP, MUST GO. LISTEN UP VOB …. IT IS TIME FOR MARSHALL TO GO. HE IS BRINGING YOUR CALL-IN PROGRAMME INTO SERIOUS DISREPUTE, AND YOU ARE LOSING CREDIBILITY BECAUSE OF HIS BEHAVIOUR ON “Down To Brass Tacks”

VOB, are not the outcomes of previous undercover DLP Moderators Maxine, Harry, Vere, Matthew, Don, etc. enough evidence for you, that you should more properly vet these “impartial moderators” several of whom have openly stiffled and bludgeoned callers of another opinion.?

@David. I am truly amused by:

“Once we start amending qualifications to appoint a person, any person to any position, we start on a slippery slope, because then at the end of the day qualifications are unimportant,” Haynes added.

Well, I suppose that Leslie would know all about that from when he was made a QC due to nepotism and blood, rather than legal excellence. To him, qualifications truly would be unimportant.

There you go again slandering people, Amused. What is Haynes blood tie that got him QC. Is not Haynes one of the brightest lawyers of his group?

What are you supporting David? The DLP view or Gibson’s appointment with a change in the law or without a change in the law?

@The Scout
No law was changed or adjusted by the BLp legislation to accommodate David Simmons.

@Sargeant
Some of those same politicians if they do not hold a ministry stand as lawyers in our law courts to provide justice for all citizens. Law courts seldom decide political matters, and not running for office does not make a person non-partisan now does it? Look at the accusations being made of Leslie Haynes. Check your central bank governor, would you decribe his behaviour as partisan or non-partisan? Does cooling off for five years make you more or less partisan? Is there any evidence that partisan behaviour coloured the decisions of Mr. Simons while in office as Chief Justice. Do you know how previous Chief Justices’ voted?

@TooManyLawyers: “…..and you cannot tell me that there are no qualified bajans for the position!

There is a very old saying: “Don’t fix want ain’t broken…

But, as is empirically clear, the Barbados justice system is *systemically* broken.

A corollary to the above old saying is: “Do fix what is broken.

And, once again, let us please remember that Gibson *IS* *A* *BAJAN*!!!

@David. I wish to join you in your support of Marston Gibson, a most excellent son of our soil from Christ Church who has been absent a while and now returns with his vast store of experience and scholorship to make us stronger and more respected.

@Spratt. I answer, but you don’t choose to hear. And if you think you are going to get me to expose myself legally with your clumsy and transparent questions, you ought to remember not to try to teach your grandfather how to suck eggs.

However, the questions posed by David in the main report seem not to be addressed and what was apparently designed as a serious effort to examine the way forward for our justice system is getting bogged down in the quagmire of political partisanship. Looks to me like we will just have to wait for the input of people like Pat and Kiki to put forward views on how the present dead-and-gone justice system can be revived. Seems to me that few are looking at revival, but at the next general election. In the meantime, justice is being denied to the self-same people whose votes the politicians and their supporters will be wooing soon and, once the votes are won (or lost) the issue of the justice system will present itself only when someone feels they have been unfaired by the courts or by lawyers. Ultimately, if the rot continues (which it will not with Gibson as CJ) we will be faced with a judiciary whose imperative is politics and not justice. So maybe we could discuss ways to considerably speed up the justice system, reduce the cost and make it accessible to and protective of all, instead of the few with sufficient means to subvert it and treat it as their own personal property.

So “Bajan to the core” = “amused”?

@Checkit-out (1438): “So “Bajan to the core” = “amused”?

It is interesting to note that you posted this within 60 seconds of the alleged post by “Amused” claiming a post by “Bajan to the core”.

So, then, either “Amused” has been posting under two different names here on BU and “Checkit-out” is highly attentive, or “Checkit-out” is trying to distract from “Amused”.

Which is it?

Bajan to the Core does not mean it is Amused! It is a family computer, he has a wife and children who, I assume use the computer with their own monikers. He just did not change the log in. This happened with another blogger who used someone’s computer when he was in Bim and was accused of being that person. Lighten up folks.

Pat; This is getting very interesting.

So you know the family situation with “bajan to the core” and “amused”? Are you a member of the same family? Do you use the same computer?

Hallal grow up man..

@spratt

BU’s position on CJ Gibson has been represented from the get go. We can’t wait for him to sit on the Bench.

Bajan Truth

Some of those same politicians if they do not hold a ministry stand as lawyers in our law courts to provide justice for all citizens.
********************
Of course politicians have a right to earn a living whether they are lawyers, doctors or double dipping consultants but I’ll bet that the lawyers who are MPs are very selective as to the type of case and client they take after they are elected.

Simmons wasn’t just any politician he was the Attorney General who in one fell swoop went from being the Gov’t’s Chief Prosecutor to the country’s chief adjudicator without any “cooling off” period

@CH. I and amazed (and amused). Pat is right. Greetings Pat.

Sargeant. When he is cooling off he will become less political and more objective, and in cooling off he will be more competent. do you know how ridiculous that sounds. I recommend when choosing someone for office ensure they have qualifications, experience and background shows character. On this occasion it worked out, on another the person might not be right. Why is that a problem to you and a person not meeting the experience qualifications is alright.

@Crusoe. Our legal system was debased when an attorney general was immediately made chief justice. There is no debasement when a judge without political affiliation, courted by both political parties, has lectured in law and the UWI for a number of years and has held a license to practice law in Barbados since 1981, is made chief justice. That is what international judicial opinion will take note of and react favourably, as it reacted unfavourably to a politician with no judicial experience being made CJ and leaving the justice system in one hell of a mess. So get real and smell the cawfee. By the way, laws change to reflect the needs of their societies. As the justice system is a mess due to political nepotism, any such change, unecessary though I consider it, is a matter of national emergency.

I agree with Crusoe and Leslie Haynes.

On another note, I do not think that the writer of this submission is familiar with the new Civil Procedure Rules.

He wrote:

“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”

It is true that originating documents must be served personally on the parties to the action but unless a rule stipulates otherwise no other document needs to be. For example, a defence or a notice of application or an affidavit can be served by e-mail or by fax. I also know of no rule requiring affidavits to be sworn at the registry. A defence need not be sworn at all (just certified as true by the maker).

Also, in my view, there is nothing wrong with the case management system. But I know that Amused has other views.

One thing that needs to change is the scheduling of chambers matters for the same time. Rather than schedule 10 matters for 10:00 and have counsel go in according to seniority, I think that they should schedule each interlocutory application for a different time. The notice of application can give an estimate of the time that counsel thinks the application requires and the matter will be limited to that estimated time.

Barbados should also consider automatic referral to mediation. This means that parties will be required to sit down with a mediator and attempt to settle the matter before a case management hearing is scheduled.

Some of these things may help with the back log but at the end of the day I think that there are just too few judges.