Marston Gibson became Chief Justice of Barbados under some very questionable circumstances but, nonetheless, he is Chief Justice and it would appear that there is lots of goodwill out there for him to succeed in bringing some order to the chaotic judicial system. It would appear that he is seeking to jettison that goodwill before he gets started. Rather than get on with the job, he is all over the place making speeches more like he is seeking celebrity or going after the popular vote. From where I stand I see him as long on talk but short on action. In my opinion all these speeches might appeal to those that are easily impressed but they are making him look less and less as chief justice material.
In one of these speeches he addressed the issue of praedial larceny suggesting or declaring that the sentences for that offence were too light, and I think that rightly so all Barbadians, except the thieves themselves, would agree. However, as Chief Justice, I don’t think that it is his place to be making such declarations. My question now would be: what would happen if the Director of Public Prosecutions were to appeal one of those light sentences? To my mind the Chief Justice could not be part of the panel to hear the appeal since he has already indicated how he would decide matter. That would give the crook an arguable ground for appeal if his sentence were to be increased. I believe that in those circumstances, to appear fair the CJ would have to recuse himself from any such appeal.
I have little confidence that much will change under his leadership as I believe that he has already been infected by the system. On September 19, 2011, I wrote to the Chief Justice, in my capacity as General Secretary of Unity Workers Union, on behalf of one of my members, complaining that a judge had refuse and or neglected to certify a draft order that was corrected to the judge’s specifications and resubmitted on April 15, 2011. All the judge had to do at that point was to affix a signature: such an onerous task had already taken the judge five months.
While I am grateful that within one day of submitting the letter the Chief Justice took action to resolve the matter. However, I am disappointed that he would write to Unity Workers Union to absolve the judge for such tardiness. He wrote in bold print,
“Draft Orders are NOT certified by judges but by the Registrar or members of her staff, usually the clerk.”
I would be charitable to him and say that he did not deliberately intend to mislead UNITY. I believe that he reported what he was told since he has no experience working around the Barbados court system. I can assure the CJ that at one stage during my varied career I was the court clerk for the Solicitor General’s chambers and I spent many hours outside judge’s chambers waiting for a judge to certify draft orders. Whatever is the desirable situation in the courts, I can assure the CJ that judges do certify draft orders.
Mr. Chief Justice my advice is, watch your back.
@Casewell. You could only be a fool. As for the comment about how the CJ is out of order to question tarrifs for any given offense, that is so blindingly ignorant that I really have to wonder if you took some stupid pills before we last bumped up.
As for your final sentence, that is pure Peter Simmons and to make it perfect, all you would need to do is to tell him to “walk good”.
I hope the CJ will have the good sense to pay absolutely no attention to your churlish and Simmons-serving post.
Similar promises of reform and improvements were made by the immediate predecessor.
Loads of attractive high sounding promises were made in the present Administration’s manifesto.- FOI & Integrity legislation, etc.
Keep holding your breath!!
The present economic climate with seriously disappearing financial resources will force these high-sounding proposals and projects to the back burner, if not off the stove. Which would Bajans prefer: Barrack settlement, CLICO payout, 4 Seasons, better pay for the police, keep civil servants on the payroll, pay the UWI for arrears in tuition fees and economic costs, a new Hospital or a pie-in-the -sky modern legal system?
A legal system is basically a service provider involving trained professionals most of them at the taxpayers expense. Over 700 professionals and we can’t get some acceptable level of efficiency and effectiveness with the human resources that so much money has been spent to train. Use of ICT is a basic skill that every legal practitioner has access to. Change the laws to allow for the use of the modern technology in reporting, recording and managing evidence and documentation.
But expecting this to be implemented in a hurry is like waiting on the other members of Caricom to become fully fledged members of the CCJ!
The CJ has only been two months on the job and Caswell you couldn’t wait to bring out the “Poison pen” then you have the nerve to tell him to watch his back. have you given thought that the note sent to you as to regard as to the certification of drafts is correct ,Given the way things are done in Barbados in the legal system the rule of law took a back seat to what is officially written on the books. It might only goes to show that YOU and others working in a broken system for many years might indeed broken many laws.The CJ is there to correct these problems and everybody is going to be in for a”rude surprise” Caswell you might be wrong on your correction of the CJ. He stands head and shoulders above you when it comes to knowing the law. .
The certification of Any transaction coming out of the Supreme Court is the function of the HEAD OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATION…ie THE REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME COURT. While the judge’s signature of approval makes the process easier, the responsibility for perfecting the Order falls fairly within the jurisdiction of the Registrar. Caswell should be careful how he rushes in to try to expose a lawyer of the ability of the Chief Justice..HE IS A MAN OF NO MEAN INTELLECT.
Caswell, why would you wish to make PUBLIC a PRIVATE appeal to the Chief Justice of Barbados? Certainly your extended training over so many diverse areas should have cautioned you from pursuing a path of such impropriety !!! Watch out Caswell !!!! Be careful in what appears to be an exercise in axe-grinding.
What I see coming from these threads is that the legal system has endemic serious human resource issue regarding skills and competence levels.
I suspect the majority of the current practitioners are graduates of the UWI legal studies programme with ties that bind. Is this the source of one of our major problems?
maybe Caswell is trying to score “POINTS” with the viewing public.it is all for naught. The higher the monkey climbs the more his tail becomes exposed.In this case your “TRUE CHARACTER” is being revealed and it doesn’t look good.
Caswell stop jumping the gun, give the man some time nuh? It is so easy to criticize but as AC said the man has only been in the job 2 months. Have you ever proven yourself in a new job in 2 months. If you believe you had, then you are a GENIUS or a JENNYASS.
Moving away from the procedural matter Caswell has raised, His Lordship’s open and down to earth style is bound to offend. He comes over as a person who wants to embrace the public to become part of the solution. His open style to the office to date to be frank – has been refreshing. Perhaps the lodge fraternity maybe in disagreement?
I am just amused by Casewell’s statement to the CJ, “Mr. Chief Justice my advice is, watch your back.”
In the recent past, there was a case before the Ontario courts a part of the submissions of which was a secretly recorded telephone conversation between Peter Simmons (the brother of former CJ David Simmons) and another party. In it, Peter Simmons advised someone to “Walk good and watch their back” and then filed a spurious and self-serving affidavit that claimed that this was local Bajan/Caribbean talk by which good wishes were intended. Blasted fool!
We all know the close connection between Casewell and Clan Simmons.
That really is the only part that I find hysterical and offensive in Casewell’s ignorant and ill-informed diatribe. For the rest of it, I completely agree with and defer to the comments of @ac, @fair play and @Just wondering.
One other point, I see from this morning’s Nation that Sir Clifford Husbands has resigned as GG and demits office TOMORROW! I speak under (not much) correction, but I am fairly sure that his shoes must now be filled until the appointment of a new GG, by the CJ. So, given the stellar start by Mr Gibson in his office of CJ, may we urge the government not to ruin his momentum (or put him off his swing) and to appoint a new CJ QUICKLY. Like RIGHT AWAY!!!!!! If the Government is finding difficulty identifying a suitable candidate, I can provide excellent guidance as to the names at least three. And David Simmons is most assuredly not on my list – nor Peter.
Ex High Court Judge (Sir) Elliot Belgrave will be acting in the post from November 01 until further notice.
he is not address as his lordship. http://www.gisbarbados.gov.bb/index.php?categoryid=33&p13_sectionid=1&p13_fileid=545 he is term of address is Mr. Chief Justice
“retired High Court Judge, the Hon. Elliot Belgrave, will act as Governor General from Tuesday, November 1, until further notice”.
As far as BU is aware The Honourable the Chief Justice Mr Marston Gibson can be referred to as My Lord or Your Lordship which is done in the Court or on the street especially.
For one with “Change” comes disagreement and discontent that is va good sign . No one wants a leader to be willing to give in to what’s is best solely of interest to an individual or organisation. THE CJ must follow rules and guidelines as so written by LAW and i’m am certain as a man of high intellect and integrity he would expedite as set forth by law and not by hindsight and not as Caswell in his ignorance said” He was TOLD” Many might would be magnifying whatever the CJ does and putting every minute detail under the lenses of a microscope.looking for failure,however they need to take a step forward and allow the CJ to clean up the mess in justice stabbing instead of handing him his “pink slip” before he even gets started. However i conclude that is ” the nature of the beast” I have confidence that the CJ would do his far and over beyond best to do what’s in the best interest of the country for he himself said”that his father instilled in him not to back away from a commitment .
in previous commentcorrection”In the justice system’
To all those who have jumped on me or should I say to all those who are easily impressed.
I am aware of the practice in the courts when it comes to certifying draft orders. What the CJ wrote to me does not accord with the practice. When he was in New York giving all those interviews he left the impression that he was coming to Barbados to clean up the system. However, what he did on the first opportunity that presented itself to send a message to the judges that it would not be busuness as usual: He protected the judge who took five months to append a signature on a document. The judge had previously asked to have the first draft of the order corrected, and after it had been corrected to the judge’s specifications, I am now hearing that it was not the judge’s job. Did they not know that five months ago or when the firsat draft was submitted in December 2010.
I have no axe to grind: I do not know nor have I ever encountered the Chief Justice in any sphere of activity, and I live my life in such a way that I would not have to encounter him unless I am a plaintiff or a witness. Nothing I write here or anywhere else is personal and I am certainly not picking up anybody’s fire-rage.
@Caswell – should you then have been complaining to the Chief Justice that the practice does not reflect the legal requirement? (If that is the case)
@Caswell – also, you stated “within one day of submitting the letter the Chief Justice took action to resolve the matter.”
Was the matter then more quickly resolved because of the action taken by the Chief Justice? Can you provide more specifics of this?
All I can tell you is that I handed in the letter of complaint to the receptionist about 2:30 on the 20th and by the 21st I am informed by the lawyer that is acting for my member that she got a call from the judge’s clerk saying that the JUDGE could not find the draft and ask for a third copy. The previous two drafts were also lost and they blamed the Registry.
In today’s Sunday Sun Ezra Alleyne *For the Record* column is gripping at the CJ’s suggestion that the Courts need to embrace technology.
He ends his column by opining that ‘with limited resources at the level of the 1970s (still only criminal courts in Bridgetown), it seems clear to me that a broader perspective approach is needed. God god man give the guy a break, he has been in the job a short while is is still in socializing with the job mode.
Is this the same Ezra Alleyne who would have been lauding the former CJ?
Where was this kind of feedback then?
david see page 4 of bgis link which contain style of address. you will see that only bishop and judge maybe be address as my lord. also it is the Honourable Justice Mr Marston Gibson if writing a letter if you are writing a letter address to him. if speaking you drop the honourable and say Mr chief justice .I know it a silly complaint but you get the little things done right and large thing fall into place.
When you guys are through shooting the messenger maybe then, you’ll read the message.
@ Caswel Franklin…..Interestingly you showed where and why the goodly CJ has to recuse himself should such an event arise.Given that you went on to show that clearly you have an axe to grind,should you too not recuse yourself from making public your opinion?Not only does it smack of disingenuity, it begs the question how will UNITY respond in a grievance where the employer seeks to base a claim against a worker and the body of work against which this claim is based is two months old or there about?
@Caswell – thanks for that information. You have to admit then, that was a very impressive result! Whatever the Chief Justice did, the judge acted the very next day!
You have to assume that the tardiness of the judge is as obvious to the Chief Justice as it is to you, and obviously the judge got the message. What more could you reasonably expect at this stage?
Don’t get me wrong: I was impressed with the speed of the CJ’s action. I was not impressed when he sought to excuse the tardiness of the judge. If he had said, “I have dealt with your matter”. I would still be impressed: justifying the judge’s tardiness is inexcusable.
The CJ has just arrived on the job, you need to give him some latitude to deal with matters in-house and not expect him to drag one of his judges across the coals in the public eye.
I did not want the Chief Justice to drag anyone over the coals publicly or otherwise: I merely wanted the order certified. I was offended because what he wrote to me was totally incorrect.
You misunderstood: I was not making a threat. I was merely suggesting to him that he should be careful who he takes advice from.
All sorts of thoughts run through my head when I read the piece and the first was that Gibson has only been in Office for two months hardly enough time to get his feet wet and the knives have come out. Then I thought that it must be some kind of record for a public figure to be dealt with so critically after being in Office for such a short time and then I remembered Albert Brandford’s column in the Nation when he attacked Thompson after covering the swearing in ceremony the “sense of entitlemet column” (I don’t think that record can be broken).
Then it struck me that Caswell despite his latest protestation is unhappy about the appointment as he wrote that he was appointed “under very questionable circumstances”, those are strong words and while I don’t want to put words in Caswell’s mouth it seems he is still questioning the legality of the appointment.
Finally, Caswell is lucky to be living where he is, if he addressed the words “Watch your back” to a Justice residing in the (USA/Canada) in a blog/ newspaper whatever the medium after the judge had rendered an opinion he would find himself in the hoosegow before the sun came up.
It is obvious to BU that Caswell’s reference to ‘watch his back’ was not to cannot a physical threat more to be aware of the possibility of colleagues working to undermine him.
No argument from this quarter, but words do matter and you don’t want to be quoted out of context.
Unless you can say that my earlier posting in respect of the REGISTRAR BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL MATTERS RELATING TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE ARM OF THE SUPREME COURT is inaccurate and does not reflect the proper exercise of an aspect of the jurisdiction of the REGISTRAR of the Supreme Court , then you CANNOT affirm that what the Hon. Chief Justice wrote to you was incorrect..
Given that you appear to have the means to travel you should take Sargeant’s comment seriously.
You don’t always get a second chance to explain a threat.
I really don;t understand people like Caswell. He is Exhibit A as to why the legal system is stagnant . Everybody must have there own rules. Here he is being oblinerate totally pompous and arrogant trying to over ruled The CJ response, Man you really make me laugh road scholar you are not.To add insult to injury he then accuses the CJ of trying to “Coverup” for the judge. My God you are really looking for trouble . If it was me i would drag you through the legal system for false accusation. you need to watch your mouth.
Lest we forget..THIS Caswell Franklyn is THAT Caswell Franklyn who was the personal assistant of David Simmons the Attorney General of Barbados as he then was. That David simmons later became Sir David Simmons Chief Justice of Barbados amid a storm of political protest.The refusal of the Government to extend his tenure as CJ gave rise to the appointment Of Mr Marston Gibson as Chief Justice. That appointment has been heavily criticised on many occasions by Caswell Franklyn. Cant we see that Caswell’s diatribe is related to the series of events? Need I say more?
So will the new CJ have to recuse himself from any matter involving Mr. Stuart as an attorney if the Dems are voted out next election? lol
What if he has to recuse himself? It happens all the time.
Damn David your support for CJ Gibson reminds of the second coming atmospherics attached to the late PM attaining that office. My ‘lol’ should have indicated the lighthearted nature of my comment as I have nothing against the CJ, and have past no judgement on his tenure only his appointment which is now a non-issue. My emphasis was more on the defeat of the Dems.
The CJ would certainly not need to recuse himself in any matter involving the DLP, Mr Stuart or anyone else, unless he has a conflict of interest. If the appointment by a DLP government in consultation with the then leader of the opposition, Ms Mottley QC is seen as a conflict of interest that disqualifies him from sitting on any case involving the DLP or people who were members of the government when he was appointed – and let us not forget Ms Mottley QC – would someone (anyone) point me to specifics on which a former attorney general, then CJ (David Simmons) recused himself from sitting on cases involving same with the BLP. Judicial appointments, particularly that of head of the judiciary, are made by the legislative branch – does that mean that the CJs of all the Caribbean countries ought to recuse themselves in like manner? Should Lord Judge, the CJ of England and Wales, recuse himself from sitting on cases involving the UK government and people like Mr Blair, Mr Brown and Mr Cameron? Should the CJ of Canada do the same in relation to Mr Harper? Etc. This arguments that the CJ should recuse himself in regards to cases involving Mr Stuart are of no merit whatsoever. Please get a grip. Reality, please!!!
The next thing we have to look at is that there is considerable legal argument, including amost authorotative opinion posted on BU, that states that the Government had no need to effect a change of the Supreme Court Act to appoint Mr Gibson. The fact that the government chose to remove the possbility of futile, meritless and time-consuming legal challenges that would have delayed and denied the resurrection of our moribund justice system, is to be applauded, rather than condemned.
Marston Gibson is now our Chief Justice. He has made a flying start. Instead of carping and political-partisan bitching, we ought to be giving him our full support for the benefit of all who seek justice from our courts of this land and, until now, have shamefully and illegally denied it.
@David. BTW, kudos to Ian Bourne and Bajan Reporter. A resounding “well done”. Take a bow, Mr Bourne, and more please!!!
@ Caswell Franklyn
Did you write back to the CJ voicing your opinion about the contents of his letter to you?
The CJ should be commended for seeking, verbally at least, to take the mystique out of the lagal and judicial sysyem in Barbados?
One good good suggestion for the new CJ is to consider a situation where significant delays, tardiness and or improper conduct by judges could be reported in confidence. Do you know how many people in Barbados who have matter before the courts in which there has been inexcusable delay and who would, but for fear of the judge, complain?
Wow a whistle-blowing policy for the Courts?
I would like to think that the problems with significant delays and tardiness is more about an archaic system that does not use modern day management systems.
Surely the Judges in Barbados would like to do their job efficiently.
Nation interview wqith COP
When you see all this criminal activity around you and the lawlessness on the streets . . . to recognize things are getting worse?
Dottin: I don’t recognize the Barbados that you are talking about – that things are getting worse and the country is beset by all this . . . .
So what type of Barbados do you see?
Dottin: It is a Barbados with low crime rates; it’s a Barbados that from time to time you do get spurts of crime, as was demonstrated in recent times. But if you look at the experience on the streets – and my officers are involved in interacting with people every day – I don’t recognize the Barbados that you are talking about.
The Nation newspaper is bent on making Barbados out to be a second Trinidad or Jamaica as it relates to crime maybe this has to do with the Nation is owned by Trinidad interests. I am in full agreement with COP Dottin in his reply to Nation editors questions. People say Dottin is BLP so there should be incentive for him to make things worse than they are lo and behold he is not. The man is a professional unlike some of the The Nation newspaper’s BLP operatives whose aims are to drive fear of crime into the hearts of citizens. There is crime and lawlessness in Barbados but nowhere at the level The Nation and Rickey Singh in particular would have the world believe the facts dont support a desperate crime situation.
The comments by Caswell Franklyn are insensitive, illogical, puerile and totally lacking in commonsense. The Lord Chief Justice is factually correct about the certification process. To assert procedural rectitude to some flawed recollection of what he did as a clerk is beyond belief. The statement about the CJ recusing himself is an obvious overreach without a factual basis. The Very childish attempt to say that the CJ should pillory one of his judges is contemptible, to say the least. Franklyn should apologize to all here for the very poor quality of his submission.
My views are honestly held, unfortunately, I can’t say the same about yours. You wrote:
“The Lord Chief Justice is factually correct about the certification process.”
That might be the practice in well regulated court systems, but it is not the practice here. I say to you that you are a dishonest person since you well know that the CJ might be “factually” correct but you know that he was not ACTUALLY CORRECT. Up until September 20th when I submitted my complaint judges were certifying draft orders. Rather than use your intellectual sleight of hands to discredit what I wrote, I challenge you or anyone else to call me a liar.
The problem, with people like you, is that you are only abusive and cannot think for yourself. You abuse might make you feel good about yourself but let me assure you that it has absolutely no negative impact on me.
Typical. The CJ is on the job less than a month and he is being told
to get on with the job and stop talking to the people. He must behave like those who went before him by pretending that he can’t talk or relate with the masses. Well I want the day to come when he goes on a talk show and answer questions from the ordinary people who write his cheque and will underwrite a check for life when he retires.
Give the CJ a chance and let us stop being so utterly unreasonable.
Why are you all surprised by the attack on the CJ ?
Bajans in the Diaspora are not at all surprised. Trust me.
It’s going to be interesting to see how the C.J handles the Clico matter.
bro franklyn. it seems that that you might have to watch your back the way the DLP apologists have sought to demonise you for stating a few facts which in their view appear to be a criticism of wonder boy mr gibson’ and that is why the economy is in such a soory state. dlpites see everthing as an attack on the institution in george street. only this morning listening to mr gibson talking about the priso i said to myself- methinks the man speaks too much. i hope some of what he says does not come back to haunt him. and i feel that his appointment eas as tainted as mr simmons although i heard that mr simmons’ had the blessings of mr thompson with certain caveats attached. do not let them frighten you with their vile remarks.
I find Mr. Caswell’s revelation concerning the matter he disclosed to be very interesting since it paints a two sided picture of the CJ that on one hand shows he means to do business by taking necessary actions and on the other declares somewhat that he is a bird of a feather and as a result flocking and protecting his fellow birds must go together. I understand Mr. Franklin’s assertion and in no way I see it as a negative against the CJ. I too in another thread stated that all the CJ seems to be doing right now is a lot of talking with very little action. I maintain that maybe this is the getting to know the people period and the people getting to know the CJ period as well. These speeches are being undertaken for that purpose and maybe in that light. However in a court system like ours that has been the subject of much criticism for years the CJ cannot afford to be talking for the next few months to come because he is the change that we want to see transform the nonsense that is our judicial system in this country. So Caswell do not be bothered by your detractors. Continue with your revelations.
@Sparkling | October 30, 2011 at 6:21 PM. Completely agree.
@BMcDonald | October 30, 2011 at 8:59 PM. Ditto. Except Fraklyn is entitled to his Simmons-indoctrinated views and, in the spirit of democracy, if he wishes to be an ass, we should allow him to be as ass and derive amusement from it, particularly as there is nothing that he and his mentor can do to alter the fact that Gibson CJ now runs the courts and, but by bit, the fortress of ineptitude of the previous administration will be dismantled and ALL will be revealed. It has started to unravel already. We have seen how many cases the CCJ has lashed into the Barbados judiciary on. How many more of these will there be? I know of one for sure right now which is going to open a very nasty can of worms.
The point here is that CJ Gibson responded and solve your problem. You have to give him the benefit of any doubt that he will attempt to make the back office change required to make sure there is not a recurrence. If this had repeated with you after then there would be good grounds to challenge the CJ.
The question is if this has been going on for so long did you challenge the forger CJ in similar circumstances? This is to establish consistency on your part.
Balance &Sunshine Sunny Shine
Rest assured I will not let a few or many mindless idiots scare me off. I will comment as I see fit until the good Lord takes me, whether the apologist like it or not.
This matter developed after Simmons retired so I could not have challenged him on it. Quite frankly, I did not complain to Mr. Moore who was acting, and in any event, he would not have attempted to mislead me on the procedure that is practiced in the courts to pacify. More to the point, even though I did not agreee with Gibson’s appointment, I decided to wait because of all his mouthings about cleaning up the courts from his interviews in New York. I thought he would have made a difference base solely on what he had been saying. Even though he acted quickly to resolve the matter, I am disappointed that he would have written to me and closed ranks with the nonsense that he was speaking out about before he took the oath of office.
Undersrood, it can’t be said you don’t call a spade a spade.
Come on Caswell; surely you understand basic rules of politeness !!! How can you refer to the Hon. Chief Justice in such terms? You must know better.
calling a spade a spade .
that term is being used out of context here . its usually used with verifiable facts and not to slander or malign another person character with whom they are opposed i.e CJ Marston Gibbson.
Where did I slander or malign the character of the Chief Justice. Also, how did you come to the conclusion that I am opposed to him. If you read and understood anything that I wrote on the appointment of Mr. Gibson you would realize that I opposed the method of his appointment.
My opposition resulted from the fact that Government is continually changing the qualifications when they want to employ one of their friends who does not qualify. I even cited the example of the change in the Civil Establishment Qualifications Order to ensure the appointment of the current Chief Marshal.
My opposition to the appointment was never personal: I do not know, have never spoken with nor seen Mr. Gibson in the flesh. I am a trade unionist and my opposition is what you would expect from any trade unionist worth his/her salt. The reason why you did not get any opposition from other trade unionist is that the leaders of the trade union movement seem not to be able to separate their political support from their role as trade unionist.
Rather than see my position for what it is, this blog is inundated by a constellation of clowns, who cannot think for themselves, making silly comments about me.
words to the effect ‘i believe that he was told’ inferring that CJ must have relied on some else’s input without doing the research himself. wouldn’t you say that is maligning which would lead others to believe about the competence of a such a person in high office. the public is expectation of our leaders is highly suspicious so when you throw out phrases to such effect it makes one wonder about the validity of the person chosen.
In another part of your submission you accuses the CJ of closing ranks with the judge after he sent you the NOTEaddressing the issue . Some one not being familiar with the day to day workings of the court would believe i it.leaving a false impression and doubt negatively on his character. I hope you know that your submission can and must have cast serious doubts in the minds of many towards the CJ.
@Caswell in my previous comment The wqord “Opposed” should have been disagreed since you were talking about the CJ Note sent to you refering to tne necessary procedure of drafts and certification. maybe David can google the information on Drafts and certification
I really don’t understand what you are talking about. Do you know that one of the ways of doing research is to ask someone that knows. How else would he know what is practiced in the local court unless he asked someone?
Everything that I have written is the truth or a reasonable conclusion drawn from the facts.
Again, I am not opposed to Mr. Gibson: I opposed the procedure that was undertaken to secure his appointment. I still believe that the Government’s behaviour in this regard left a lot to be desired.
So what was the point in saying Mr. Gibson was “TOLD’ if by your above comment anyone doing research can give the information. However your article gives the impression that what he was “Told” was incorrect and if that is true it would show a level of incompetency on the CJ . Words can cut both ways therefore one needs to be clear and precise about the way one goes about administering them to the public.
@Casewell. You are clearly having a very bad week. Go and drink a few rums and try very hard to get over yourself.
“Do you know that one of the ways of doing research is to ask someone that knows. How else would he know what is practiced in the local court unless he asked someone?”
And how do you know he didn’t. And how do you know that he did not go and read the relevant practice directions? How do you know that the way you were in the habit of doing it was the right way?
This suggestion of cover-up is ludicrous and petty and, far from impugning the CJ, makes you look silly and worst of all, irrelevant. Protesting that you are not against the Chief, given your comments, is transparent – no one with an iota of common sense will have believed you. Your slip…..I mean agenda…..is showing. Time to up your game, otherwise people will start to wonder why in hell you are in the position you are in.
Caswell must be a man of great importance that you learned men are replying to his expletive deleted