@Casewell. I imagine that your well-known close association with David Simmons has given you the inside position on what exactly it is that Simmons intends to say, what documents he intends to produce, etc. The writer of the blog has, it seems to me, merely pointed out what we all know to be the truth. Truth which has been reprised on this among other blogs, many times. Truth that has constantly been alluded to by members of the legal profession. Truth that Simmons is totally unable to man up to. The writer has also hypothesised as to what form these “revelations” by Simmons MAY take. Not what form they WILL take. And of course Simmons can rely on the Nation to publish anything he hopes will be politically embarrassing (but likely will not) to the government. Likely the Nation will publish unsigned and undated documents and call them “evidence”.

I imagine that it has been difficult for Simmons to see his tenure as chief justice examined under a microscope and taken to pieces. It cannot be easy to design for yourself a legacy that you hope will put you in line to be named as a national hero, only to see it torn down so that you are seen as a national failure and embarrassment. But his actions, aided by his chum Owen Arthur, must take the onus for that.

The biggest problem for Simmons must be to see Chief Justice Gibson attain in just 6 months what he could not attain in his whole tenure – the respect, support and admiration of the people of Barbados – and to be universally popular as well. Enough certainly for Simmons to throw a hizzy fit and behave just like an abandoned mistress.

Oh well, he never had any dignity to start with, so no one will be surprised that he has learned nothing along the way.

But you, Caswell, do have the potential to be better than your master. So, since indenture is long gone, maybe it is time that you cut yourself free. Wake up and smell the cawfee and celebrate and support the efforts of the new, far better and competent chief justice. In other words, celebrate the start of the post-Simmons ressurection of the Justice System and the possibility now of also rebulding our off-shore sector. After all, it was none other than Owen Arthur who drew our attention to the problems wit the off-shore sector recently, but I suppose he thought we were so stupid as not to see that it was he and Simmons that caused this in the first place by killing off the Justice System.

Please excuse my political ignorance, and no disrespect to the politically inclined, but why is there an issue if a contract expired and one party to that contract did not wish to renew or extend it?

Okay – but that is to imply that a contracting party should be bound by precedent. It is possible for the desires and objectives of a contracting to change. Added to that, is it possible that Sir David’s appointment was not consistent with prior appointments, so that the handling of an extension thereto was equally inconsistent with that of prior extensions?

@We are not as smart as we think | April 15, 2012 at 1:06 PM. Yes! Are you sure you are not An Observer in disguise?

This last response speaks to the asinine practices which our politicos play.

@ Amused

“killing off the justice system”

Would you say how precisely?

“respect, support and admiration”….”to be universally popular”

What precisely is your evidence for that?

“national failure and embarrassment”

What does that mean precisely?

‘He never had any dignity’

Which finishing school did you come from?

In the so-called Big Interview with Timothy Slinger in the Nation today not one question about the huge case file load which has slowed the Court System to almost a crawl in the delivery of justice. Not one question about the fact that judges are known to have retired leaving cases which have been outstanding for several years in their wake. This business about how our Courts function is truly a farce, a cover up some might say aided by the Fourth Estate. The only measurement that should be applied to the performance of the former CJ is the court’s ability to dispense justice swiftly under his tenure.

@ Ross
If my memory serves me Sir David was the President of the Law Society while at law school as a youngster..from there many many great appointments. I am wondering where this “middle cut, under-cut” coming
from…you struck at the wrong nail “respect” and fell off the chart with that one.

@ David

The post, as I read it, is basically about the wisdom of talking about a past event; the point being that it then exposes the ‘flasher’ himself to further scrutiny. At this time there has been no exposure, decent or indecent, so that in a sense the latter part of the process is premature.

BUT if you really want us to do that (and earlier one-to-ones suggest you do) then clearly there are all sorts of criteria we might use to assess a man’s record. Delay may well be one of them. If we take the wider frame, an enitre life, then yes you look at the ways in which the subject has wrought change where he has been able to have an input. I don’t think any one criterion, as you seem to suggest, is decisive.

‘Popularity’, as Amused seems to suggest, I would rule out altogether.

I look forward to David Simmons’ revelations.He is no mean gladiator.Cut of the cloth of Bree,Henry and Louis.When they speak no blinking dog barks.As for the perception of comparative achievement Gutter Perk wrote it LOL.

@ Richard King.
I rather doubt that any of the three mentioned by you.. Bree , Henry or Louis would be so lacking in astuteness as to make the statements attributed to David Simmons .

Why does Sir David want to revisit this issue? It is like picking up a turd by the “good” end, the result will be messy and he will end up smelling like s..t.

One of the problems for Simmons was, I think, his appointment as Chief Justice from Attorney-General. In the popular mind that was synonymous with pending corruption. It was ‘slippery’, a ‘sham’, even ‘unconstitutional”. As successive posts here suggest, we simply cannot rid ourselves of the mindset which treats only of party political squabbling and so impress that on appointments like Simmons’. In other words, we look for what is divisive rather than the merits, in this case of the man himself – which, of course, have yet to be discussed.

For myself, having, I suppose, been schooled in a different jurisdiction, I do not inevitably share those concerns. There are many examples in the UK of law officers being translated to the Woolsack and with that responsibility for judicial appointments. Amused will tell you of the architect of the common law as we know it – Sir Edward Coke – who was successively Solicitor and Attorney General, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas and then King’s Bench. But move forward 200 years and we have Lord Eldon and then Lord Halsbury (from Solicitor General); another 100 and we have Lord Birkenhead, Lord Hailsham, Lord Simon, Lord Rawlinson, Lord Shawcross, Lord Gardiner. Some law officers became Lord Chief Justices – thus Lord Caldecotte and Lord Reading. So there are plenty of precedents. One recurring issue is whether it is right for an Attorney-General to have a seat in cabinet. The modern approach is generally to say ‘yes’.

I’m sure there are other jurisdictions where similar appointments occur. What, eg, of Canada?

Now if I am right about the root of Simmons-cynicism, then it may well be that we must apply it to the appointment of the present CJ if, as people say (I really don’t know), that was engineered by DT. Indeed, perhaps there is even greater cause for concern since the process was even less
transparent.

On the issue of the prudence of disclosure, I tend to think it is imprudent UNLESS it would reveal very serious and demonstrable corruption in high places and not merely disappointment at being passed over. Being an ex-anything can be a very lonely past-time – which is why I suppose so many spend their time here.

@robert

Your comparative is fine in so far as it does not factor the governance system/ethos which generally prevails in the UK.

You are correct of course when the absence of a reasonable ‘rest’ period between Simmons retirement from active politics and appointment to CJ followed by a perceived engineering in the appointment of his successor is observed.

It does cement the perception that there is political trickery at play.

To repeatedly argue that the appointment of Marston Gibson to the post of CJ was not political is to insult what little intelligence I have, and once again confirms my belief that too many here see politics as solely about political parties. I look forward to Sir David’s revelations as once again the wholesome, squeaky clean image of the late PM will be under scrutiny.

@Random Thoughts | April 15, 2012 at 4:34 PM. Hardly. This is the Nation serialising David Simmons’ novel that he told the press he was writing. The title is, “David Simmons – A Love Story to Myself” or “How Great and Betrayed I Am.”

@ Enuff.
Be careful ! ” the late PM ” is DEAD ; Sir David is very much alive and with us . Need I say more ?
@ Amused .
Eventhough you enjoy having the two of us fighting on different fronts , there are some issue on which persons of intelligence MUST AGREE . Peace , my ” adversarial friend ” . LOL ..

Quoting Amused at 4.24 p.m. today ” I cannot comprehend how a former CJ could have done what Simmons has done. Indeed, anyone who has held high public office. It is so lacking in dignity as to be unbelievable.”

When I was very young I read a book “Cry Softly So the Neighbours Won’t Hear” it is unfortunately now out of print.

But the thesis was that decent women, especially decent dignified women of a “certain” class don’t cry loudly when they are being beaten by their husbands, lest they bring the “family’s good name” into disrepute.

If David Thompson beat up (figuritively speaking of course) David Simmons, then we the people of Barbados deserve to know if such “beatings” infelicities took place.

Nowadays is is not longer felt that “decent” women should suffer beatings in silence and for the sake of the family’s good name.

Can you tell me if David Thompson felt that a had a guarantee of David Simmons’ silence?

Also my old mother used to tell me that you should never tell your secrets to little children nor old people. Little children have no discretion. Old people feel that they will die soon anyhow and therefore feel no loyalty to anyone but God.

Little children and old people will often tell/sell you out.

Quoting Amused “HALLOWED LEGAL PRINCIPLE that you do not attack ANYBODY WHEN HE DOES NOT HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DEFEND HIMSELF”

Can you tell me where I can find the history and practice of this principle?

I noticed recently that the law firm which carried David Thompson’s name is closing and will no doubt come back with a new name. Is that firm also in breech of the hallowed legal principle? Or you just talking sh*te?

And besides David Thompson is dead, dead, dead.

David Thomson needs no defenders.

David Thompson cannot benefit from any defence.

David Thompson ain’t coming back.

@Robert Ross

I’m sure there are other jurisdictions where similar appointments occur. What, eg, of Canada?
*********
In Canada politicians have been appointed as judges but they usually serve some time in the political wilderness to cleanse themselves of the requisite political stain. They are then appointed to lower courts but not to the Supreme Court of Canada. If a Chief Justice was appointed after a brief hiatus from the duties of Attorney General the howls would be heard all the way to the South Pole.
The US is different and some active politicians have been appointed to the Supreme Court. The most notable example was Earl Warren who was a three term Governor of California and was on the Republican ticket as VP when Thomas Dewey ran against Harry Truman.
Warren was appointed CJ during Eisenhower’s first term and surprised many with his activism; landmark rulings included Brown vs. Board of Education ( which advanced the cause of Civil Rights) and others which were considered “liberal” at the time
Today the US appoints Supreme Court Justices who are less overt in their political stances but politics play a large part in their judgments.

We often lament the fact that our former leaders in the Caribbean have not written anything for History. We complain that the Rt. Excellent Errol Barrow had only written a cookbook. Now that Sir. David Simmons has plans to publish his memoir I would have thought that this break from tradition would be welcomed. In a previous interview with Gercine Carter of the Nation, he announced plans to write his memoir. I don’t recall him saying that he was giving tell all interview to the Nation.

Because of the quality of his work, he was appointed QC, becoming the youngest person ever to be given that distinction back in the days when persons were appointed QC on merit. He did over 20 murder cases and was victorious in all but one. He represented two different constituencies (St. Philip North and St. Thomas) in the House of Assembly. He was also Attorney General. Whether you like it or not, he was Chief Justice and holds the distinction of never having been successfully appealed before either the Privy Council or the Caribbean Court of Justice. I will stop here before I am accused of rushing in with his biography before he gets the chance to write.

The great Lord Denning, a former judge, wrote at least six books. Why is it so offensive for a Barbadian who served this country with such distinction to write a book about his life.

For those of you who are interested in facts, I would like to put the controversy about Simmons’ appointment as Chief Justice. As is constitutionally required the then Leader of the Opposition, David Thompson, was consulted on the appointment, and he agreed with only two reservations: he did not want Simmons to retire as Attorney General and assume the office as Chief Justice, that is why there was a period of a few months between the events; and he did not want husband and wife on the bench at the same time. You would recall that Simmons’ wife was a judge who also served with great distinction who was only reversed once on appeal.

@ David and Caswell

Seems Caswell confirms my hunch. Thanks Caswell.

@ Sarjeant

Thanks for that too.

Everyone has the right to speak their truth. Let the public judge. Whether Thompson is alive or not is immaterial to the fact of a citizen of Barbados wishing to speak on any matter. If he has documented proof of what his claims are, why should anyone wish to silence him? We long for a more mature society in which freedom of speech is a matter of course without recrimination. I recognise that this is an ideal, romantic dream only. Nevertheless, Simmons wishes to leave us something that he considers important. I say let him.

@ Wordsong

YES…you are absolutely right

@Hants

To be fair the Sunday Sun did features about the CCJ given its plan to schedule court in Barbados from tomorrow. Sir David’s work to setup the CCJ makes it acceptable to highlight his role in that process.