David
I tend to agree with LOL, while he may be a brilliant barbadian scholar, from what I’ve learnt, this gentleman wasn’t any highprofile lawyer in the USA as persons here was trying to protray him. A legal referee is nothing extraordinary, no wonder he accepted the humiliation surrounding this appointment, instead of him doing us a favor by accepting this job, maybe ,just maybe, we are doing him one by giving him the office.

David
You are so right, this government appears to be pishing someone down our throats, with the only qualifications that heis a brilliant Rhodes Scholar. I did some investigations and what I wrote iswhat I found, maybe the source was bias, however the onus is on government to give us the C.V of the man so that we can accept him better.

That word is PUSHING not PISHING

@The Scout | March 25, 2011 at 8:04 AM. Don’t make me laugh. The Chief Justice will apply the law and precedent of Barbados and may seek guidance from case law of other countries. In which case, it is most likely to be Canada (we take our Companies Act and our Condominiums legislation, to name but a few, from Canada). I mean the utter stupidity of that comment of yours leaves me breathless. When we had the Privy Council, the Privy Council sat as the final court of appeal of Barbados – in right of Barbados. It was called upon to interpret Barbados law, not English law or the laws of any other country. Where on earth do you get these bizarre ideas and try to foist them on us as legitimate objections to the new Chief Justice?

I followed this thread with great interest because I wanted to be clear on on a number of things, I am now clear: the Chief Justice is a political appointee, the government of the day decides who gets justice by whom. However, are there no legal minds in Barbados who could have filled the post and how come no name was offered? I think the Government acted in haste by nominating MG and then checking the law, which is stupid to say the least; then create a big hulabaloo over a law that probably would have been changed anyway, under different circumstances because most of us agree that the law was prejudice but I think the ones who drafted the law did so with good reason and the best intent. Mr Stuart was AG at that time and we had to go to Parliament to correct his bloop, I wonder where we will have to go to correct his decisions as PM assuming he makes any.

ruth do remember that unless there is a clear showing of judicial ignorance that the chief justice is in until retirement. most judges in america aren’t done to tenure and must be re-elected which can be expensive process with possibility of you not getting the position. so you have a position for life then pension vs one in which you have to fight to get. it quite easy to see he was never going for the latter. One can only hope when he get the position ( cause there no way the government is going to ease of after doing all this ) that he make all the talk of it being political appointment go away with unbias ruling and practices and improvement to the judicial system,

to sweetie- are you not aware that what little independence to some extent there was to govern appointments to the public service through the various service commissions went totally through the window with the introduction of the despicable 1974 public service amendments by no less a person than the father of independence. these spiteful amendments placed appointments to the most important positions in the public service including the judiciary firmly in the hands of the political directorate.since then, the public service have been unable to function to the best of its ability.

Gentlemen, A guy who went to such a university in NYC and did his grad studies at the Manly law school in JAmaica was accepted to the bar here in BIM.under the BLP.it made papers and was accepted by all in thelaw ferternity. So the man qualify if the government of that time reconised that university and allow a person with a degree in law to pratise here

Hants
You seem not to understand the point. No one has ever questioned Mr. Marston Gibson’s educational accomplishments.

Whenever Government wants to employ one of their own they change the rules. (I am speaking of both BLP and DLP). That is my sole concern. They have not only done it for Mr. Gibson. Others are done in secret because changes to qualifications for most other public officer only need an order signed by the Minister for the Public Service.

We now have situations in the Service where junior officers require greater qualifications than their bosses because the boss had a friend or political connection. Let us face it, the problems that they are saying that Mr. Gibson would clean up, when he becomes Chief Justice, were created by politicians appointing their lazy friends who found it difficult to make a living at the private bar. Some of them take months and even years to deliver decisions. At the end of their careers, if they serve 20 years, they retire on a pension equal to their salaries. I know of one case where the person did not serve 20 but was given a full pension in error. That error was never corrected. Incidentally, he was made a judge when his private practice was down in the dumps.

Amused
I thought your vocab was better but like all political yardfowls, the quickest thing you can do is fly up unto the paling and do what you know best, crow loud and senseless. Pity the FOOL

Ruth
You are absolutely correct. I was a boy, but I well remember the BLP marching to Government House demonstrating against these amendments, and promising to repeal them when they took power. They did that in 1976 and to date those amendments remain in force.
Those amendments neutered the Service Commissions and are responsible for a lot of incompetent persons at the top of the service. You can now only get a senior job in the Public Service with the blessing of a minister of Government.

The service commissions are reduced to rubber stamps. The new Public Service Act only made things worse.

Ruth
You can’t help but to attack me. You wrote, “the hypocritical BLP which you supported at the time used the same amendments to their political advantage…”
I was between 3rd and 4th form at school when those amendments were passed. At that time I was not politically involved.

David
So Prof. Newton hasendorsed the amendment, does thar make it right? plus the timing of that amendment? Is she the judicial goddes? As an independent senator who is appointed by the G.G on recomendation from the P.M, what would you expect?

David;

How are you so sure she is outside the political?

Lawyers from Canada, Australia and Tanzania can work in Barbados?

Since I is a dual citizen yuh mean I cuh hire a Canadian to do work fuh me in Babadus?

No! Definitely no public utterances. But I have a lot of sympathy for prodigal son’s post above.

@Jack Spratt

The Professor is endorsing the amendment to the act.

You need to exercise your comprehension skills man 🙂

@Prodigal Son

What are you bleating about? Everyone in Barbados is politically aligned and University lecturers are no different but some may hide it better than most. The difference is that the DLP is in the ascendancy so it appears that more people are leaning their way. When the shoe was on the other foot and Owen had his “Politics of Inclusion” weren’t other prominent people being seen as pro BLP?.

When Owen foisted his army of “Consultants” on a supposedly independent Civil Service, weren’t they BLP people too?

You need to “Get Real” but it is difficult when you see everything through BLP blinkers

@jack spratt

Using our best comprehension skills it is quite obvious the CBC reporter messed this up.

David
You seem to expect us to accept Ms Newton’s mouthings, just becauase she is a prof, well she’s no better that any other person who can think for themselves. The problem is many of these prof have one track minds and are only good at what they teach but maqny of them can’t even fry an egg. Many have become creatures of some political party. I remember Maxine Mc Clean, even though she not a prof., denying on the call-in program that she’s not attached to any political party, yet when David Thompson died she admitted that she was his adviser to him. I stopped trusting her from then

Interesting interview with Marston Gibson in the Sun today. Any comments anyone?

Anthony & Amused
I got news for you. The interview is interesting for a number of reasons, but not for what you think.

Mr Gibson is coming to implement a number of pioneering changes to the administration of the judicial system. Unfortunately all the changes that he is planning to implement have already been done.

He plans to abolish the assizes in criminal cases, Sir David has already been there and done that.
Again, he will introduce assistants for judges, sorry there are already four since 2004 as part of the justice improvement project.
He also plans to abolish preliminary hearings before magistrates in criminal cases. I don’t know if he was listening but that was announced by none other than Sir David Simmons at the opening of the new Supreme Court complex but they were awaiting a challenge at the level of the Privy Council in an Antiguan case against a similar move.
Since he is coming to do all those things that have already been done, and he cares so much about Governments finances, I suggest that he should stay in New York and save the Government the cost of relocating him. By the way, I would like to see a copy of his CV.

@David. Franklyn’s slip is showing big time. Seems to have acquired an intimate (and so imperfect) knowledge of the Simmons “legacy”. And he wants to see a CV. He and his master intend to play their futile (and to Barbados’ justice system, damaging) game for all they are worth, even though the game is played out. Oh well, it is a free country.

He also needs to do some work on his timing. Unless I missed something, was the Interview really necessary at this time? Does it give the sense that he is head and shoulders above the pack? Does his rationale for not packing up his candidacy for the post ring true?

@Hants. Well said.