Chief Justice Marston Gibson

My Lord,

On this day, September 01, 2011, the day of your installation as Chief Justice, we congratulate you on your swearing in and we thank you sincerely for having accepted the appointment.

The timely administration and delivery of justice in Barbados has long been one of the primary concerns with the BU family. For too long, the Charter of Magna Carta (that celebrates its 800th Anniversary in 2015) has been flouted and ignored in Barbados. A Charter that clearly postulates that justice delayed is justice denied.

We have read your comments courtesy of the Fourth Estate and we ourselves have been linked to the New York Times blog in connection with your appointment. We are hopeful and optimistic that you are exactly the right man for the job of re-delivering Justice to Barbados.

However, my lord, we also realise that this is not a task in which you can succeed on your own. You will require the support and cooperation of the judiciary, the Bar, the Registry and the People. Last, but by no means least, Government will have to provide you with the tools to do the job, whether it be budget, the setting up of Royal Commissions to deal with unsatisfactory, incompetent or recalcitrant judges or, most importantly, having the courage and resolve to provide its backing (without political or personal bi-partisanship) to support your efforts. We urge everyone, especially Government (by both and whichever political parties) to give you full support.

Clearly we do not have enough judges and hopefully the budget will be forthcoming for you to be enabled to appoint more, in consultation with those who need to consult. Hopefully, these will include senior and experienced members of the Bar, rather than those elevated from the very systems that at are fault for the dearth of justice. The fact that the government has taken the decision to select you from outside the inner ring has created a huge expectation in the minds of long suffering Bajans.

We note the decision of the English Court of Appeal reported in The Times Law Reports of August 30, 2011 which upholds an appeal from a decision of an English QC sitting as a deputy judge. We hope that the inexcusable backlog of cases (some not heard and some part-heard and all several years delayed) before the Barbados courts may benefit from Barbados’ silks giving of their time and undoubted experience and competence in the same manner. We would not like to think that QC has been totally debased to solely a political thank you, but means superior competence. “Qualified Competence”, if you like.

We hope that judges will consult with unconflicted senior counsel and produce decisions that do not take years and are delivered in keeping with the guidelines of 90 days or, for complicated cases, six months.

We hope that most motions can be disposed of in the Canadian manner, by telephone conference calls between judge and counsel, or summarily, with judges having the full knowledge of the Rules that they now so patently lack.

We have long advocated ADR and negotiated settlements and we hope that you will encourage this and establish a working basis on which such can be entered into.

We hope that the chaotic “scheduling” of the Registry can be resolved and that, if that means appointing a new Registrar, we will not find the present incumbent or unsatisfactory future incumbents elevated to the judiciary as a reward for the chaos like that which now reigns. That would be a slap in the face for the taxpayers. The buck has to stop somewhere and it ought to stop with the department head under whose reign (and we use the word “reign” advisedly) court files are lost, scheduling of hearings of cases either ignored or made a mess of and systems and equipment provided by the taxpayers either ignored or simply not used, to the extreme detriment and, in some cases, hardship (both personal and financial) of Bajans and overseas investors who have applied to our Courts for justice.

We also hope that you will find the means at your disposal to speed up the criminal justice system, so that no longer do accused persons remain on remand for unconscionable periods of time.

Again, my lord, our congratulations and thanks and support –and prayers* – to and for you as you embark on your task.  And may the CCJ never have cause to ridicule our Justice System under your watch.


  1. @jack spratt

    Your strategy navigating BU is now folklore.

    Throwing sprat(t)s will not work.


  2. I take it then you do not know. Over and out!


  3. @spratt

    You should know better than that, maybe one of the legal beavers in the mainstream media will write on it 🙂


  4. Truthman
    Yawnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn, I now get-up (sumting dat you in do recently,lol) from sleepin so dah is why I in see you addressment to me. Now lemma hear ya. Ya really tink dat my hard earned money should go ta support de offspring a dead-beat dads? I nevva nevva phoop a woman yet so why I should be supportin children dat in minez? Leh de same dead-beat dads dat enjoi de ‘sweets’, wuk n support dem young whuns. De same way dem cud ‘gett- up’ n fcuk, dem could get-up n wuk to support dem lil pickney. Not my money. Sorry. All my sons got young whuns n dem gotta support dem or ga up de road fa ‘cock-tax’. Not a cent a minez Mr. Freundel. We would part cumpnee.

    But I still luv Freundel rale bad,Truthman, so doan mess wid he fa ma.I plannin ta prapoze ta he anyday now.Doan worry, you gun get a ‘invite’, causen we gun want sumbody ta pick up de bottles afta de big-do.
    Tek dah.
    mwahhhhhhhhhhh, tak dah tu, ya rebel.


  5. Cuh Dear
    Wait, who is dis lil ‘up-start’ dat kno me sa good? Anywayz, ya kno ma good fa tru. Man, I luv dis man Mr. Chief Justice rale bad. I tink he is so irresistible. Tall, dark, hansum, sexy n de lil ‘gap’ between he teets. ( I got one a dem lil ‘gaps’ tu) Oh my lawdyyyy, I got my eyez pun he.

    Looka anudda fella dat I find really irresistible is Conde Riley. Tink I got de rite name. He’s associated wid WI cricket, I tink. Tawk bout a sexy ol boy wid the snow-head n beard.
    stupseeeeeeeee, I gone man, causen my tong gettin a ‘hard-on’.
    I gone man.
    Cuh dear!!!!!!!!!!!!!


  6. @Random Thoughts | September 3, 2011 at 7:38 AM. There is a saying. Maternity is a matter of fact – paternity is a matter of opinion. This, of course, predated DNA.

    With equal rights for women and the pill and other forms of contraception that have to be applied (or inserted) by the woman, I suggest to you that the choice of reproduction is now that of the woman. With HIV rife, of course, it makes sense for a man to use condoms. However, if a man asks a woman if she is protected against pregnancy and she says yes, don’t you feel that this does in large measure absolve him from responsibility for subsequent pregnancy? It is, of course, a big reach and would probably not stand a chance, but is there not an element of entrapment – and misrepresentation? Devils advocate.

    @Spratt. Had you used the Internet as your oyster as David suggested or had the slightest concept of the laws that govern our land, as you purport to, maybe the judicial system would not be in the mess that it is in. Of course there are provisions for the removal of judges by Royal Commission in Barbados and you will hear more about it, let me promise you. Soon. And I went online and checked the Times Law Reports reference to deputy judges – and know what? The reference by BU is 100% accurate. Indeed, today’s date all over the British press are refences to a sentencing appeal from a decision of one such, Cherie Booth Q.C., by the UK Home Secretary that has been upheld by the Court of Appeal. By the way, Cherie Booth Q.C. is the wife of the former prime minister, Tony Blair. So, as David says, use the Internet as your oyster – go on line, if you know how, and read ANY of the headlines for the UK papers today. It is front page on the Daily Mail and a few others.


  7. Amused, I beg you only this. Could you refer me to the two relevant provisions in Barbadian law which establish your point? Insult my ignorance if you must, but could you do me that small favour…please?


  8. @Spratt. I see you have abandoned your point about queens counsel being deputy judges. Let me therefore dispose of the question of the removal of judges from office – and that it has never been done, does not mitigate or reduce the fact that the mechanism is in place for such removal. And you can try to put whatever spin you like on it, but it most assuredly CAN be done and, in recent years, many counsel have both contemplated putting the mechanism into operation and, in some cases, threatened it. With the result that long “reserved” judgements have suddenly materialized. I quote from the Constitution, which is available online (let your fingers do the searching).

    “Section 84. 3. A Judge may be removed from office only for inability to discharge the functions of his office (whether arising from infirmity of body or mind or any other cause*) or for misbehavior, and shall not be so removed except in accordance with the provisions of subsection (4).

    4. A Judge shall be removed form office by the Governor General, by instrument under the Public Seal, if the question of the removal of that Judge form office has, at the request of the Governor General, made in pursuance of subsection (5), been referred by Her majesty to the Judicial Committee of Her Majesty’s Privy Council and the Judicial Committee has advised Her Majesty that the Judge ought to be removed from office for inability as aforesaid or for misbehavior.

    5. If the Prime Minister (in the case of the Chief Justice) or the Chief Justice after consultation with the Prime Minister (in the case of any other Judge) advises the Governor General that the question of removing a Judge form office for inability as aforesaid or for misbehavior ought to be investigated, then –

    a. the Governor General shall appoint a tribunal which shall consist of a Chairman and not less than two other members selected by the Governor General in accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister (in the case of the Chief Justice) or of the Chief Justice (in the case of any other Judge) from among person who hold or have held office as a judge of a court having unlimited jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters in some part of the Commonwealth or a court having jurisdiction in appeals from any such court:
    b. that tribunal shall enquire into the matter and report on the facts thereof to the Governor General and advise the Governor General whether he should request that the question of the removal of that Judge should be referred by Her Majesty to the Judicial Committee: and
    c. if the tribunal so advises, the Governor General shall request that the question should be referred accordingly.”

    Happy now?


  9. This is a Royal Commission? The JCPC? Moreover, has there not been an implied repeal of this now that the JCPC is no longer our highest court?

    My God, Amused, you are ignorant of that which you speak! And I have not abandoned the point about the deputy judgeship but I won’t ask you anything else again, believe me.


  10. Implied repeal? What implied repeal? It would be far more credible to say that the matter now goes to the CCJ instead of the JCPC and not, like some little child whistling in the dark, pretend that the threat has gone away. AND we know exactly what the CCJ thinks of Barbados’ judges. Cold comfort for those members of the bench that our friend Spratt seeks to reassure.


  11. UK Prime Minister has announced some elements of Court proceedings will be televised:

    http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16063466

    Yesterday the CJ made some interesting disclosures:

    1. the use of law interns to assist judges with research and getting experience in the process.

    2. A greater use of ADR; we have people on remand for too long.

    3. Ensuring that sentencing for praedial ;larceny as an example fits the serious of the crime.


  12. @David. With respect, I don’t think Gibson CJ was thinking of criminal cases when he advocated bringing retired judges in to preside over ADR. These would be for civil cases. Criminal requires that either the accused plead guilty or be tried by a jury of their peers. Negotiations in criminal cases are between prosecution and defense counsel. Sometimes, the parties will consider it prudent to plead to and allow a lesser charge in exchange for a guilty plea, in which case the judge can go right on to sentencing and save the court time and the time of a jury, plus the expense of a trial. ADR relates to settling civil disputes where it is likely to the benefit of both sides – this saves a lot of time and money for the litigants and certainly avoids clogging up the courts.

    Praedial larceny has become big business, is a serious crime and social problem and does need to be dealt with aggressively.

    I also think that the idea of getting students to assist judges with their research is a very good one. Now, all that needs be done is to ensure that the brightest and best are chosen and that nepotism plays no part in it. Of course, there is the problem that a student may understand the law better than the judge, in some circumstances. Little things like civil procedure rules.

    So far, the CJ is living up to the hype. I have no reason to suppose, other than by lack of government backing, that he will not continue to do so.

    I have read with interest the English plan to introduce live TV into the courts. My understanding is that this will cover only sentencing phases in trials of public interest. Hopefully Barbados will follow this, which in its turn follows the USA. Remember the OJ trial? It would be very interesting to hear from the BU family as to whether they think criminal cases of public interest ought to be televised and their reasons for their opinions. It might kill off the audience for the Young and the Restless.


  13. @Amused

    Thanks for the clarification. Item 2 should be split in two. The CJ mentioned the need for reform to the remand setup.


  14. My darling Amused
    No, I whun like ta see dese cases televised causen when de criminals start ta sob n brek dung, I gun ga ta pieces n my heart gun soffen fa dem. So leh be n pop de bitches neck. Poppppppppp.

    Ya see dem 3 in de Nation front page taday? indeed sad. dem cud be out day mekkin sum young ting(or a ol ting like me) happy. insted dem hankuff n facin some serious charges. Ent dem igrunt nah?
    De fair-skin whun triceps n biceps in look bad a’tall. He coulda lock off my neck anytime wid dem. i wunt-ta complane.

    Amused, but den I flip ta de back page. Oh my gawddddddddd, rite in front ma eyez, dare was de CJ. All like now de papah still rale whet. I luv dis man rale serius. Wonda wah i would gotta do ta appare befo he. Any idays? I gotta meet he;by de hook or de krook. Tell ma wah ta do nah.


  15. @Bonny. You too bad. Just hang round the court. He gotta come out some time. Then disable the policeman by flashing your charms and the CJ is yours, cause he will see the charms too.


  16. Amused
    Which court, which courtttttttt? tawk fass, I hay dressin as we speek. wah time de court is shut?
    Tell de trute, I feel dat when I cass my eyez pun he, dat de fuss ting i wood do is fainttttttttt. Nex ting ya kno he wanna kno, ‘wait, who is dis hungry woman hay layin dung pun de groun n froffin at de mout? Looka, lemme gih she mout ta mout recession, or wah evva ya is call um.”
    Den is when I would mek my move. Hole on pun dah tong a his n suck um like a lolli-lollipop. A sweetttttttt thang like he. I tu luvs he.
    I tinkin serius bout changin my prafesshun. I tinkin bout tekkin up law.


  17. Greetings bloggers collective
    Salutations
    The Eyes of Truth are Watching You!
    So Marston: Gibson is the now appointed CJ, really?
    My Lord….Realy? What ignorant repulsive nonsense.
    It is written that all men and women are created equal. I should also add with unalienable rights, endowed by the creator. Tell me did Marston: Gibson created you? Yet until we get back there in consciousness of knowing who you are, you my fellow being will always be a serving subject of the undeserving, and what or who you serve is indeed the question. Is it the truth? For with your eloquent rendition of political flamboyancy yet the hard valued question was evaded for a posture poise in acquiescence limbo.

    As I recall when this issue came up there was a matter of stipulated criteria to qualify, notwithstanding a dead politician’s presumed wishes.
    Be that as it may I am a layman. When you tell me there is a criteria to be met in such matters then that provides the bar of presumed equality for all to observe. So tell me was the criteria met by Marston: Gibson? Again not withstanding the blatant display of expediency of laws of Barbados by it’s revolving Government. But what are standards if but to be broken by the standard makers for political gain indeed. But yet I ask would that same zeal be displayed of the changing of an Act in haste for the benefit of public interest as opposed to political benefit? Believe me they (Public and political are entirely two different interest indeed.

    It is no surprise to me, the world youth, vividly are completely disgusted and fed up with the double standards in practice all around them. On entering this Earth they are asked to abide by the rules and conformance of standards, only to see such standards redefined time and time again buy those who spend great energy creating and enforcing conformity except for themselves.

    However, the issue I raise is not with the man Marston: Gibson. Perhaps he is an able CJ and would have my unquestionable approval but for an underlining historical omission.

    Marston: Gibson did not meet with the criteria of practising of law a minimum of 15yrs a common law jurisdiction as was highlighted as a criteria in a previous blog. Now that might seem as an outrageous thing to say, but for this historical fact and I challenge those who wish to prove otherwise!
    FACT:
    1. The USA stop being a practising common law jurisdiction certainly at the time of Abraham Lincoln.

    2, On the North becoming bankrupt at the time, the South through Congress was asked to act as surety on the behalf of and allow the North to enter into Chapter 11 bankruptcy with its then bankster creditors, but the South refused at said meeting and walked out in disgust leaving the house of congress in seni di (at rest). However, Abraham: Lincoln committed an act of treason by marching the South congress at gun point and forcefully made the South sign documents which unlawfully allow Abraham: Lincoln to create a now US corporation acting as a legal government and with it a new corporate constitution.

    3. Subsequently Abraham: Lincoln was assassinated and over time the USA public was tricked unwittingly to opt out of Common Law jurisdiction into a Legal contracting jurisdiction know as Admiralty and Equity with the US corporate government. It is in direct fact that affiances were deny Common Law rights in the US courts is what led to suspicion. Subsequent investigative research brought about the discovery of this hidden history.

    4. This was soon asap spread into all other presumed Common Law practising countries under the same contracting pretence. otherwise we would not have the “legal” yet blatantly unlawful system and practising violations we see today by the rule makers!

    5. In Common Law there is a presumption of Innocence until proven Guilty!
    In Admiralty and Equity there is a presumption of Guilty until proven Innocence!

    6. In Common Law a jury of your peers is paramount of due process.
    In Admiralty and Equity a judge or administrator will determine your fate; due process in limited if at all existent.

    7. Common Law is not the same as Admiralty or Equity Law their are like chalk and cheese with tastes to match.

    8. In the world today Contract is the Law, subject to three legally binding pillars: 1. Full disclosure. 2. Equal terms or consideration. 3. Wet ink Signatures of parties.
    NB:
    The omission of any one of those three pillars renders the alleged contract void ab initio.

    So tell me where was Marston: Gibson when all of these events were taking placed. which court did he practice Common Law? some of you might see no relevance to Barbados. But to admit the above truths would be exposing of an even greater lie and deception that applies to the whole world. The world was hijacked and Mankind has been a participating slave of his/her destruction. Outside the protection of Common Law you are a slave!! The lacking of the acquired criteria of practising Common Law in a specified number (15) of years exposes this whole process as a big lie!

    However, guess what? This above facts will remain the whole truth and nothing but the truth, yet Marston: Gibson will carry on as CJ because of that cunning governance we have in Admiralty call Tacit agreement. marvellous in it not? Yes the decisive Agreement of Silence.

    And where did this poison of society came from? It came from the propagating within our educational indoctrinating institutions, of the false notion of what Law, Equality and a True Government system really is.

    See if you can spot True Government system; Law, and Equality. Remember now it is all about the facts.
    Facts:
    1. Did you know that there are five possible forms of government systems that has been the umbrella of all the isms that keeps us on the treadmill of hatred? When will we learn? Now is as good a time!

    Government Systems:
    1. Anarchy; total chaos, who wants that? No rules whatsoever.

    2. Oligarchy; Rules yes, but by a hidden hand of a Few. Still not a beacon of equality there for all to see.

    3. Monarchy; My Lord…Rule by the “One” Yep if the king/Queen as much as tell you to grunt like a pig you better. Might seem extreme no doubt but there were times where the refusal to do so could lead to unfavourable consequences like losing your head. Nope no Equality unalienable rights protection there either. The other ruse is that it rarely is rule by one but often in fact is really oligarchy behind the scenes, rule by the few

    4. Democracy; Rule by the People. In other words, 51% of population can deny the other 49% of their rights. But very often it is not the majority but presumption of the majority because of that poisonous practice of Tacit Agreement of silence. No objection is the Legal approval. All you who advocate equality how can you critically accept Democracy with all the blatant flaws it has. and this too is also an oligarchy in disguise. Critically ask yourselves when is the last time you felt you were government? Democracy has been the Leap-Frog process to tyrannical Oligarchy government system worldwide. Time to wake the hell up bloggers.

    5. Republican; Rule by the (Common) Law. My jaw hit the floor when I discover this fact. I asked where was this in my educational schooling. Where was this in my Criminology degree. I am past being angry now. After all for whom will be deceive let him be deceived, right?. Now there are the capitalist and Dawinist philosophy roll into one. Deception is the name of the game.

    But so you don’t miss it, did you spot the Law, Equality and True system of Government? Well it is laid out like this.
    There is the Creator. (sorry evolutionist, your unsubstantiated claims are partly why the Earth is in such a mess) in blessing the existence of mankind on this Earth declared all men/women Equals with Unalienable rights. With the responsibility to do no harm, commit no fraud and not to breech the peace. In other words your rights begin where my ends. When anyone of those responsibilities is violated, no tacit agreement can stand in the way of Lawful remedy. The Law in such terms doesn’t seek approval only evidence of facts. So one man can tell the whole world to Lawfully leave him alone to get on with his life in pursuit of happiness. As long as those three responsibilities are not violated then no Law is broken. Not complicated is it?

    Man created government to serve his administrative needs and protect the unalienable rights which wasn’t given to man neither to be taken away from man by government. But it has proven to be in government’s best interest to collude with hidden forces to propagate the Admiralty, Equity, fake (Fiat) Democratic System because with perfection man has handed his rights over to government, whereby governments are now the master and man the slave. In a True Common Law, governments in their current form will not exist today. this is self evident!

    The issue underlining Marston: Gibson is of greater importance than the appointment it self but a re-edification that the Barbados government is implicit in the continuance of the great deception the world has ever known. it is indeed wise to question the allegiance or intent of a Rhode scholar. Many of you think that little Barbados is outside of the remit of the power grab going on in the world. You will soon discover that the powers that be are already amongst you. Yes born of the soil but with a hidden loyalty until death to a force beyond its waters.

    Yet with such horror remains a beacon of hope. As of the 30th of March 2010, through Lawful and Constitutional process the USA organic Lawful government was reinstalled and registered with the Hague and international court of Law. So the battle for Freedom has historically and continues to echo from the land of united States of America. Two worlds now created only must survive. Once again Common Law has found its standing in the world again but yet still denied by many.

    Common Law would put George: Bush senior and junior, Dick: Cheney et al. Tony: Blair, Gordon: Brown, David: Cameron and Sarkozy et. al and all the other politician entities that implicitly threw a wrench into the checks and balances of the public’s constitutional protection, behind bars -everyone of them. The worldly political action of transferring of the world’s private debt into the world’s public responsibility is by far the most treasonous action against manity of post generations of this era. We did not walk out in disgust and with strength told our governments no. Instead we tacit went along in silence and now the world is facing financial melt-down with unjustifiable debt.


  18. @Amused

    If there is one person’s writing that I dont have a problem with is yours. In every profession there is a procdeure for removing professionals frome the regiter, Similary, there would have to be procedures in place to remove magistrate, jusdges etc. Any how, thanks for educting those persons who dont have to deal with the Laws of Barbdos, like you and I.

    @Bonny

    Why dont you behave?Every man in public life you want, you soon will get some lashes. But any body lay the hans on you I gun getm ma drone aircraft and sting dah with some missiles. I hear fah yuh, so dont fear yah hear.

    @David

    I join with you and those BU members who mean well in welcoming our CJ and hope that he will bring some meaningful change and improvement to the the judiciary. I am proud that he is a graduate of UWI, and we UWI gradutes welcome him back home and will support him, knowing that the race is not for the swift, but he that endure will endure to the end.

Leave a Reply to Truthman BurtonCancel reply

Trending

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading