Marston Gibson will be the next CJ of Barbados.

He has stated a few of the things he intends to do to improve the Justice system in Barbados.
Honest competent professional lawyers and public service officers should support any effort he makes in this regard.

No accused person should be on remand for 2,3 or 4 years. That is tantamount to punishment without trial.

This not just about the efforts of one individual. It is about a group of privilaged Barbadians (Lawyers) who should improve the management of their own practices so as to improve the quality of service they provide to the citizens of Barbados.

Hants, both you and Gibson are behaving like Christopher Columbuses. The man obviously has read Sir David’s Simmons’ statements … but that is okay if he adopts the good ideas that the learned Sir David had every intention of implementing. Only it would be nice to just acknowledge the brilliance of the predecessor, as he clearly on a path to bring significant and productive change to the system.

Of course Sir David was rudely and maliciously curtailed in his mission by the dead king. Then again, that was the dead king’s prerogative, however unwise, and politically-motivated the decision was.

Yes David of BU, WE SHALL BE WATCHING GIBSON VERY CLOSELY! Couldn’t believe my ears when the man suggested that one of his main aims for accepting the post was to honour a promise he made to the late David, and the sleeping Freundel!

What makes this noteworthy is that IRENE made a serious fuss in the Senate, about whether an actual person for the CJ position had been named. Not even the President of the Senate, nobody could match the repartee, the erudite challenge of Senator Kerry Simmons, as he floated like a butterfly, and STUNG LIKE A BEE.
(One of the parts I enjoyed was where the President suggested that both he and Simmons were idiots. Simmons sharply shot back requesting that he (The President) speak for HIMSELF.

But Simmons claimed that ONE PERSON ONLY … GIBSON, had been named for the post, and dimwit IRENE vehemently denied it. But here we have GIBSON now confirming that he made a promise to Thompson and Stuart to take up the post!

Didn’t Owen say to the Opposition if they had good ideas bring them and he will use them?

If the newly appointed CJ sees merit in upholding the law and bringing about justice in a timely manner shouldn’t that be commended? You have been asking for a quick turnaround … Did you get under Sir David Simmons?

I certainly didn’t? The file was not found – case was put back. Hey, Sir David was asked to part company – how many permanent secretaries are still in company?

Justice delayed is justice denied. So we wait until the PS release the info to a new DLP minister and projects are delayed – look into it.

Anybody who accepts the position of Chief Justice under the guise of “the Prime Minister made me an offer that I cannot refuse..” or “I made a promise to the Prime Minister” is someone not worthy of such a position. The Legislature and the Executive should not only be separate, they should be viewed as separate… this point should be hammered home by those who are chosen to fill the position to the point where the Government if bent on continuing the practice, will be forced to go elsewhere in the Commonwealth to find a candidate… If the people at the top do not see a need for change in the way they are selected, how can you expect them to respond adequately to a need for change in the organizations over which they have responsibility ..

It is worth a mention that the views of Gibson an Simmons’ coincide. However the sad reality is after Simmons’ tenure as CJ the handing out of justice can be compared to Ketchup rolling down a hill.

Justice delayed is justice denied.

We will have to wish the CJ designate well in his mission, but as the Bajan saying goes, “if you start wrong, you can’t end right”. I fail to see how his appointment is any less tainted than Sir David’s, and by extension, will leave any more beneficial a legacy.

By his own admission, Marston Gibson’s prospective appointment reveals him as a political creature of the DLP (and I use “creature” in the sense of “a person whose position or fortune is owed to someone or something and who continues under the control or influence of that person or thing”). I think it will be difficult for him to rise above this fact.

I agree entirely with BAFBFP’s comments above. An appointment of this nature should not only be made impartially, but, perhaps more importantly, should be seen to be done so. Transparency should be the order of the day – but this appears to be based on a promise made in what one can only imagine would qualify as the proverbial smoke-filled back room. Furthermore, they say that if you break a promise to a dead man, he will haunt you…keep it, and he will haunt you just the same.

However, like all right-thinking Barbadians, I hope that once Mr Gibson is confirmed in the position that he is able to prove the doubters such as myself wrong, and that he is able to succeed with his mandate. For surely our legal system is an embarrassment in its current state. Let us hope his appointment does not further compound the embarrassment.

There is no difference in the selection and appointment of these two recent CJ’s if any.

Yes Enuff ….. glaring differences is right! Why all of this stealth. Secret promises to a man to give him the CJ position ….. then pretend that no such person exists, because it taints your supposedly noble attempts to change the constitution, so that that same UNQUALIFIED man receiving the promise, could assume the job.

Then you mount a deceptive campaign to fool the public, that it was not a case of ONE NAMED MAN ONLY, BEING CONSIDERED FOR THE JOB! The same man MR. GIBSON (to his credit, a truthful man) then comes along and say that the job was in fact promised to him by TWO PM’s, and he wanted to remain faithful to the commitment, which he in turn gave to them!

Silly IRENE then gets up in the Senate trying vehemtly to deny the above, only to made look like the fool she is by Senator Kerry Simmons.

Look, I really wish the illustrious gentleman well, but you DLP people, disabuse your minds that Barbados is populated with idiots who can be easily duped.

Confirmed. Truthman Burton is Kerry Symmonds.

Incidentally, with regard to that Senate debate on the Constitutional Amendment, to accomodate the appointment of Mr.Gibson to his position promised by BOTH the dead PM, and the current walking dead PM, I would urge those of you who missed the debate on radio, to get hold of Hansard, and read the report.

That lengthy exchange between Senator Simmons and the President, had me feeling REAL SORRY for the president. It was like Muhammed Ali against Sonny Liston as the President, with his voice evidencing extreme stress, almost it seems on the point of tears, tried his best to suppress the cutting, STINGING, remarks of the young Senator.

Clearly, Simmons came well prepared as he demonstrated his remarkable knowledge of jurisprudence (that’s what it is? poor me in know them big words) as he shamed the Government side into silence, except for a few desparate squawks from SILLY IRENE!

@All…

Chief Justice to Barbados (designate) Marston Gibson allegedly had this to say in the Barbados Nation News newspaper 2011.03.27:

“We have technology in Barbados that is superior to the building in which I work now in Nassau County in New York. Barbadians should be proud that we are way ahead of the Supreme Court of New York in Nassau County.

“[But] if you have the technology and you are not using it, then that is a problem. It has in it all of the elements for success, but we are not using any of those themes.

Hmmmmm….

@Barnes: “…by superior technology he’s probably referring to the new airconditioners in the Supreme Court complex on Whitepark Road…after all, nothing pulls like a Trane…

LOL.. Perhaps you are correct.

I’m hoping he’s thinking rather deeper.

Like the modern use of ICT, for example….

Wherever he gets his ideas from, is not important to me, what is important is if he can make them happen. He could acknowledge the source, but that its up to him. What disappointed me is that his taking up the appointment is not about a love for the law, or a determination to improve justice for ordinary people etc, his motivation for taking the job is that he promised the PM. Well, we shall see.

@ Truthmam Burton —–The proper title is Senator Sandiford-Garner. Respect is due her and you do know that.

i am still perplexed by mr mccarthy’s article.’ the advacates of this view regard the the united states as a “mixed jurisdiction” rather than a common law jurisdiction.’ which view, caswell’s or the views of the others? i need to know if what caswell saying is true that the amendment does not solve the problem it was intended to solve and if caswell is right what next from a legal point of view?no skirting of the issue would bring closure to the matter.

@ruth. Typo. It should have read: “The Act has NOW been formally changed to make that clear and remove any areas of doubt…….”

to irene- i admire your ambition but looking back on this intervention oon the blog at a later date; you surely would not regard this as your finest hour. for years you masqueraded as an independent columnist directing your comments to owen arthur until he took the bait and stupidly responded to your satisfaction. that was the opportunity you needed to promote yourself as this fearless female warrior who could command the attention of a prime minister. armed with that resumee, it was only a manner of time before you entered the election equation. mr thompson tried to enhance your image in an effort to unseat “the pain” in the next election by giving you high profile assignments but to date your only accomplishment has been to be part and parcel of decisions which has saddled barbadians with unnecessary red tape at the hospital in the payment of fees hitherto not paid before and dispensing fees for drugs. present circumstances in the political environment might very well land you a seat in the next elections and parliamentary debate would continue to be all the more poorer. your senseless article suggests you need counsrelling in anger management.

I wish to correct the author of the article,Mr Gibson has not yet,at least not to my certain knowledge, been appointed CJ of Barbados.I would also like to suggest that with the recent amendment of the law concerned, the leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition needs to be consulted on the candidate selected.I am suggesting that this is yet to be done.I read the Gibson interview and it certainly gives me an insite as to what to expect from this individual and the type of person that he is.After all he has no difficulty with changing of the law to accommodate any one man!!! His main concern was honouring a promise to a dead man.Thompson may be dead but he is certainly still directing national affairs.

@liberal

But they already consulted the pass leader of opposition when it when the candidate was first submitted. the reason this came about was that he was suppose to take up the post at the start of the new year but then the law found that he didn’t have the qualification for the position so it was changed before the easter break of parliament. So all i assume they are wait on now it to present the appointment to the gg and have it gazetted. That is of course the point we are at if caswell interpenetration is proven to be false. If it proven to be true then they going to have to amend parts of the law again.

David

I noticed that in the past when posters used the names of public figures to post comments you would add an Editorial comment to the effect that you couldn’t confirm whether it was the actual individual.

What happened to that policy? Do you know if the poster is Ms Sandiford Garner?

@Truthman Burton

We missed you from these pages for a few days. I thought you would be among those who would be defending the good name of Barbados as it was being dragged through the mud.

I know, I know Barbados only deserves defending when the BLP is at the helm.

I really hope that the person who posted that blog under the Senator’s name is not really her. If it is, I am disappointed a bit or not really, come to think of it, this is the level at which the Dems operate. Even though it is a blog, you would think that standard English with good grammar would be used by the the aggressive Senator.

I do not admire her and everyone I know always say that woman annoys me. I think she is too aggressive and always appear to want to browbeat people into submission to her views.

How could she say that Mr Gibson has not been appointed, it is only because they had to change the law and wait for the GG to sign the amendments. Fumble Stuart confirmed that the job was offered to Mr Gibson in one of his blabberings. Tony Best’s article last Sunday with Mr Gibson confirms the fact. What they did not expect is that Mr Gibson would have spoken out like he did. Dems are such liars that they dont remember the lies they tell.

So what did the dead king promise and discussed with Mr Gibson? Is Mr Gibson lying then? What did he discuss with Mia the Opposition leader at the time? You all think Bajans stupid? It is only the Dems who are stupid?

This woman has been pushed by the dead king and people wonder why, remember the grief and tears at the funeral? She is no star, she seems to have failed at everything he pushed her into. The QEH is prime example, if naming and shaming debtors to the QEH is an achievement. Who with any sense would allow a clown like Rommel Marshall to come “unexpected” into their meeting to talk nonsense and then for her to say……………. this shows that there are deep, deep, deep problems in the BLP. How you could come to that conclusion when the BLP dont want the man, he has nothing to offer. And you all aint got deep, deep, deep problems in the DLP.

Truthman Burton, ignore her, she is an annoying arrogant woman.

Quick!Quick! Would someone get “Truthman Burton” a glass of water? The innocuous delivery turned out to be a short pitched ball a la Charlie Griffith and “Truthman” didn’t know how to get out of the way. Right now de bat gone one way, de cap gone annuder, de shirt outta de pants, de sweat runnin down he face, he lying on he back on de pitch and he feeling sumting warm running down he leg..

Look, I would never say that you are unpatriotic, Samuel Johnson was alleged to have said “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel” and in your own words you are:

Quote:I am such a gentle, tranquill, unflappable, kind person … wouldn’t hurt a fly :Unquote

Hardly the words one would use to describe a scoundrel.

We do appreciate your presence on these pages but one can hardly resist the temptation of ruffling some feathers.

Yet another case of the judicial system under stress perhaps?

Ruling overturned

2011-04-01

Barbados’ highest domestic court, raising concerns about inadequate direction by the trial judge and related conflicting evidence by the police, has overturned the drug conviction of a Barbadian male.

And because it took 10 years between the offense and the recent Court of Appeal decision, Marcus Gill will not be retried.

Information related to the judgement, in which the appellant was represented by Andrew Pilgrim and Manila Rene√ appeared on behalf of the Queen, found the jurists making their decision largely on a previous case Woodall v. R. (2005) 72 WIR 84. where similar questions were raised.

According to court documents, Gill and another man were jointly indicted for offences contrary to the Drug Abuse (Prevention and Control) Act, Cap. 131 (the Act).

The prosecution’s case was that the appellant was in possession of 368.3 kilos of cannabis at Needham’s Point, St. Michael and that he intended to aid in the transport of the said cannabis.

It charged was that on February 20, 2001 "at about 15 minutes past midnight two police officers … were on patrol along Needham’s Point, St. Michael, when they saw a motor van … parked in the area".

"The officers observed two men in the area and announced their presence. The men responded with gun shots and then escaped on foot. The motor van was subsequently taken to the Oistins Police Station and found to contain 26 bales of cannabis," the evidence stated.

On the first count the two men were charged with doing acts preparatory to drug trafficking contrary and on the second Gill alone was charged with unlawful possession of a controlled drug. On September 14, 2007, he was sentenced by then High Court Judge Christopher Blackman to eight years’ imprisonment for the offence of doing acts preparatory to drug trafficking and ten years’ imprisonment for the offence of possession of a controlled drug. The sentences were to run concurrently from the date of conviction.

In its appeal ruling, however, the Court of Appeal ruled that "in order to comply with the Evidence Act, Cap. 121 and Woodall, the judge needed to have directed the jury on a number of matters".

"He should have invited them to examine closely the circumstances under which the identification was made and stressed to them the special need for caution because the case against the appellant depended on the police identification of him. It would also have been appropriate and helpful to tell the jury that the identification evidence was not necessarily strengthened by the fact that it was given by two witnesses," the panel found.

"The judge did not give the jury sufficient assistance with regard to the evidence as it related to each part of the required direction. The summing-up in relation to identification was therefore deficient."

They also said Gill "was entitled to the benefit of a full and proper direction on identification".

"The identification of the appellant was critical to the case as this was the only evidence against him. The prosecution tendered no other evidence to prove that he was guilty of the offences," the court said.

"As a result, it was vital for the judge to clearly address this issue. In the absence of such a direction the verdict of the jury cannot be regarded as safe or satisfactory. It would not be right for this Court to compromise on the requirement of proper compliance with the sense and spirit of the guidance in Woodall." They concluded that "taking into account the passage of time from the date of the alleged commission of the offence (February 2001) to conviction (June 2007) to the decision of this appeal (March 2011) we are of the view that the interests of justice would not be served by ordering a retrial. The appeal is therefore allowed and the conviction quashed".

Pilgrim had led Gill’s appeal on several grounds, including the allegation that "the judge erred in law when he failed to declare a mistrial after the prosecution led evidence relating to firearm offences when the accused was not on trial for such offences".

Another was that the judge "erred in law when he failed to recuse himself from presiding over the trial of the accused on the basis that he was a former neighbour of the accused and was therefore personally acquainted with him and as such there was the suggestion that he could be biased".

The court said Blackman had sworn an affidavit "in which he deposed that he resided in Brittons Hill, St. Michael from 1979 to 1992 but he had no recollection of the appellant as a little boy". (SC)

David

My attention was diverted elsewhere, I was having so much fun that I did not follow this thread. However, I am here, and I have a few more concerns.

I noticed that you reproduced the article written by my friend and former teacher, (I don’t consider him my former teacher because he continues to teach me in his regular column in the Nation, which I often use as reference material). That said, I have read his column which is now in focus and I still do not see where he said that my interpretation is wrong.

One of the things that Messrs. McCarthy and Chandler thought me is that under the rules of statutory interpretation, you only resort to finding out what was Parliament’s intention if the ordinary meaning of the words of the statute are unclear. And they are very clear to me.

David, it would be good if you also reproduce Jeff Cumberbatch’s article in the Sunday Advocate of March 27, 2011. He too did not say that my interpretation was wrong. He used a lot of words to confuse the issue, and then he partially agreed with me by saying,

“I do concede however, that the naked provision for “common law” is likely to raise further complex points of legal debate, given the multitudinous constructions of that term”.

Please sir, the law is written in English and it is just a matter of English comprehension, plain and simple.

Finally, I have re-read the amendment and it jumped out at me, it has also paved the way for Mr. Cumberbatch to be appointed as a judge. So when that happens: let me be the first to congratulate you.

@ Caswell Franklyn | April 7, 2011 at 4:57 PM |

I have read this particular blog and concludes to me in my humble opinion as missed focus banter from the real core issues concerning government expediencies and the in/famous unilateral (as alluded by consensus) pending appointment of Marston: of the Gibson family. But….

“Please sir, the law is written in English and it is just a matter of English comprehension, plain and simple”

hmmm excuse me Caswell: of the Franklyn family but I believe you have err my good man.

If you would allow me your clarification, to which law are you refering to?
1) If you were referring to Admiralty or Maritime law (to name a few for consideration) then the language is most certainly Legalese. And for one to see and interpret such a language as English, would bring about to the unwitting individual/s potential harm.
Please, your indulgence if I may.
When dealing with such law; that is, the law of the Law society as its creator, one must allow for the extended meaning of wording and the provision clause for the defining of such wording. Point of fact, what one will find is that English has nothing to do with it. So if the clause defines “Dog” as a blue eye monster with wings then that is what it will be interpreted.
That is why you have the Oxford English dictionary for English and the Black’s Law dictionary for that which I am afraid is not English but carries a deceptive assumed similarity by the untrained, that is the general public of course. For further example the word Person mentioned in public, is unwittingly taken to mean the individual and most of them would argue vehemently that to be the case.

However, Person in law can mean a corporate fictionality/legal fiction, such as non flesh and blood entities i.e. a company or corporation.

Also titles such as Mr, Mrs, Miss or TOM & HARRY (Capitis Dominutio Maxima; greatest loss of status; Slave; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5I21wE-h_g for peruse) instead of Tom & Harry (the least loss of status; free wo/men).

A Judge say do you understand? sounds like English to most right? So you nod your head. Of course you do because you interpret the word in English as comprehension. But in legal terms can have far reaching implications to your freedom.

what the judge in actual fact stated, is do you Stand Under what was stated to you, and under my jurisdiction (see Black’s law dictionary).

And might I add if it was just English why would there be a need for ninth edition now in print? If hitherto my point was not factually made.

2) If you were referring to Roman law or Common law then I must also state that the originality of such law system flows from Latin as I have already laid implication above. But is also at times communicated in legal and lawful chamber as maxims. for example, qui autem falli decipi; Let him who would be deceived be deceived.

To say it is just English would be also to deny its ethnological significance, which in strength and essence distinguishes from being just English.

In this century, the comprehension of legal and lawful language is paramount to the emancipation of the enslaved minds and property of wo/men of now, and generations to come. It was compelling for me to bring minimisation of the gross misconceptions within the tri-chotomy of legal/lawful/Jane and Joe public.
These blogs propagates it self as a beacon of truth. May my mine resonate with yours.
Take care of yourselves and each other!