Madame Justice Sandra Mason being sworn in recently to act as Governor General

MADAM JUSTICE SANDRA MASON: BU was laudatory in our approval of the recognition given to Madam Justice Sandra Mason by her appointment as acting Governor General. Indeed, BU broke this story you may recall. However out of transparency because it is our way, we have to report that some time ago a constitutional action was filed by Mr Alair Shepherd QC, on behalf of one of his clients, against Madam Justice Mason for exactly the same reasons as that filed against Madam Justice Kentish. Mr Shepherd’s client contended that Madam Justice Mason had failed to do her job, this breaching his client’s constitutional rights. BU continue to follow-up to discover if this action has since been abandoned, after Madam Justice Mason delivered her long-reserved judgement mere days AFTER the action was filed. BU notes that because the long-reserved judgement was delivered, it does not in any way negate the action filed against Madam Justice Mason, which may attract damages. BU hopes to be able to report more on this in due course.

MR JUSTICE RANDALL WORRELL: It appears that Mr Alair Shepherd has also filed an action under the Constitution against Mr Justice Randall Worrell for exactly the same reasons as those filed against Madam Justice Mason and Madam Justice Kentish (filed by another law firm). The action in which Mr Shepherd alleges that Worrell J has been recalcitrant and breached the Constitution may well have a defense, however. The action deals with an appeal against costs awarded the defendants in an action and taxed by the Registrar. Worrell J’s defense (which, on the face of it appears insurmountable) lies in the fact that he may be deemed to be unable to render any judgement, until the Registrar has found and produced to him her documents and notes on her taxation of costs. It is this assessment of costs by the Registrar which is appealed by Mr Shepherd’s client. Seems that the Registrar (this time personally) has lost these files and notes. The Registrar claims that these important documents were lost during the move from the old Registry to its new premises. Well, the Registrar is certainly consistent and has clearly set another shining example for her staff. Time she was let go as a clear and unambiguous example to her staff.

THE REGISTRAR: It is reported to BU that there are three actions in preparation against the Registrar and the Courts for breaching the constitutional rights of litigants. BU will be reporting on each of these actions as they are filed and naming names. We expect also to obtain copies of the documents filed. It seems entirely likely that the doors are opening to a whole mass of cases by persons whose constitutional rights have been breached by the very justice system whose job it is to PROTECT and GUARANTEE those rights.

BU has previously reported on this issue, but new and compelling information has come to light. Traditionally, at least until the late 80s, probate and the issue of letters of administration in the estates of deceased persons would take between 6 and 8 weeks. This time period started to get longer and longer under recent Registrars. TODAY, it takes between 1 and 2 years for probate to be granted. Many times, a further delay is caused by the ineptitude of the Registry in sending back applications to attorneys, not promptly but in their own good time of some MONTHS, identifying problems with the application. Problems that in many cases are the equivalent of CAIPO where it misread the word “Therapist” for “The rapist”. Indeed, the major complaint is that many of the times that applications are sent back could easily be solved by a simple telephone call and the willingness on the part of the Registrar and Registry to work with attorneys in order to speed up the delivery of justice, instead of working against attorneys, being uncooperative, stupid and doing all to delay and frustrate the timely delivery of justice. Meanwhile, beneficiaries (particularly spouses and the elderly) are being severely compromised and discomfited at a time that they are bereaved and desperately need comfort and reassurance. But apparently the Registrar and the Registry don’t deal in comfort and reassurance, OR EVEN JUSTICE! High time some heads rolled at the Registry, starting with the Registrar. BUT, here is the news that has caused BU to revisit this issue. The Registrar does not even have the excuse of an increased number of applications for probate being filed with the Registry. IN FACT, the number of such applications has DECREASED since the 80s, when it took only 6 to 8 weeks.

BU extend thanks to staff and members of the legal fraternity who have contributed to this series of Tales From The Courts, but it wishes to assure the general public that their horror stories with goings-on in our Justice System are very important to us and will be most welcome and we will check them out and, if you prefer, report them in such a manner that your anonymity is preserved and scrupulously respected.

Please email us! – there is the Send Confidentially Option as well.

  1. Caswell Franklyn Avatar
    Caswell Franklyn

    David

    Sorry, in my haste to respond, I did not cite the source of my comment about the removal of a judge. Please refer to the Constitution, section 84 subsections 3 to 8.


  2. Actually, this RR vs amused exchange is interesting. Why have a blog where everybody agrees all the time? Makes no sense at all… There has to be room for intelligent, adult discussion – even if said discussion gets (very) robust at times- and differences in opinions/ views.

    Proceed RR and Amused…Round 157!


  3. +ve

    I am in full agreement. And I for one disapprove of the host so openly siding with one over the other.

    Amused

    A clown is a very serious campaigner when the curtains are drawn. Carry on and see you are really capable of drawing me into your shite …!


  4. @Caswell

    Thanks!

    Here is the relevant section of the Constitution:

    Tenure of office of Judges

    84. 1. Subject to the following provisions of this section, a person holding the office of a Judge shall vacate office when he attains the age of sixty five years:

    Provided that the Governor General, acting in the case of the Chief Justice on the recommendation of the Prime Minister or in the case of any other Judge in accordance with the advice of the Judicial and Legal Service Commission, may permit a Judge who attains the age of sixty five years to continue in office until he has attained such later age, not exceeding sixty seven years, as may have been agreed between the Governor General and that Judge.

    2. Notwithstanding that he has attained the age at which he is required by the provisions of this section to vacate his office, a person may sit as a Judge for the purpose of delivering judgment or doing any other thing in relation to proceedings which were commenced before him before he attained that age.

    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.

    6. The provisions of the Second Schedule shall apply in relation to tribunals appointed under subsection (5).

    7. If the question of removing a Judge from office has been referred to a tribunal appointed under subsection (5), the Governor General, acting in accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister (in the case of the Chief Justice) or of the Chief Justice after the Chief Justice has consulted with the Prime Minister (in the case of any other Judge), may suspend the Judge from performing the functions of his office.

    8. Any such suspension may at any time be revoked by the Governor General, acting in accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister or the Chief Justice (as the case may be), and shall in any case cease to have effect –

    a. if the tribunal advises the Governor General that he should not request that the question of the removal of the Judge from office should be referred by Her Majesty to the Judicial Committee: or

    b. the Judicial Committee advises Her Majesty that the Judge ought not to be removed from office.

    9. The provisions of this section shall be without prejudice to the provisions of section 82(2)


  5. @BAFBFP

    Do you deny the right of BU to express the opinion we believe.


  6. and to complete:

    APPOINTMENT, REMOVAL AND DISCIPLINE OF PUBLIC OFFICERS

    Appointment, etc., of judicial and legal officers

    93. 1. Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, power to make appointments to the offices to which this section applies and to remove and to exercise disciplinary control over persons holding or acting in such offices is hereby vested in the Governor General, acting in accordance with the advice of the Judicial and Legal Service Commission.

    2. This section applies to such public offices (other than the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions) for appointment to which persons are required to possess legal qualifications as may be prescribed by Parliament.

    Appointment, etc., of public officers

    94. 1. Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, power to make appointments to public offices and to remove and to exercise disciplinary control over persons holding or acting in such offices is hereby vested in the Governor General, acting in accordance with the advice of the Public Service Commission.

    2. Before the Public Service Commission advises the appointment to any public office of any person holding or acting in any office power to make appointments to which is vested by this Constitution in the Governor General, acting in accordance with the advice of the Judicial and Legal Service Commission or the Police Service Commission, it shall consult the Judicial and Legal Service Commission or the Police Service Commission, as the case may be.

    3. The provisions of this section shall not apply in relation to –

    a. the office of any member of the Governor General’s personal staff;

    b. any office to which section 92 applies;

    c. any office in the Police Force;

    d. any office to which section 100 applies;

    e. the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions; and

    f. the office of the Auditor General.

    Delegation of powers under section 94

    95. 1. The Governor General, acting in accordance with the advice of the Public Service Commission, may by instrument under the Public Seal direct that, to such extent and subject to such conditions as may be specified in that instrument, the powers, other than the power to remove from office, vested in him by section 94(1), shall (without prejudice to the exercise of such powers by the Governor General under that section) be exercisable by such one or more members of the Public Service Commission or by such public officer as may be so specified.

    2. In any case where an appointment is to be made by virtue of an instrument made under this section and the person to be appointed holds or is acting in any office power to make appointments to which is vested in the Governor General, acting in accordance with the advice of the Judicial and Legal Service Commission or the Police Service Commission, the person empowered by the said instrument to make the appointment shall consult the Judicial and Legal Service Commission or the Police Service Commission, as the case may be, before making the appointment.

    3. Where the power to exercise disciplinary control over any officer has been exercised by virtue of an instrument made under this section, the officer in respect of whom it was so exercised may apply for the case to be referred to the Governor General and thereupon the disciplinary action taken shall cease to have effect except in so far as it may have included the suspension of the officer from performing the functions of his office and the case shall be referred to the Governor General shall then take such action in respect of the officer as the Public Service Commission may advise.


  7. Clearly David there are NO standards on professional ethics for blog owners to adhere to … Now is your chance to blaze a trail …!


  8. @BAFBFP

    It has nothing to do with ethics. If we agree with a position we will defend it. We leave being provocative or ‘bring balance’ to the talk show hosts…lol.


  9. Awight awight already … faget the “bring balance” talk before yah chase me way forever …!


  10. But David you are guilty of going after the blogger. That smacks of ad hominem… that makes you no better than the typical celebrated bajan talk host …!


  11. @BAFBFP

    Anyone who comes on BU or elsewhere and try to strip away our anonymity we will go after.


  12. Water under the bridge … water under the bridge. Let’s continue to entertain healthy bantering shall we ..! 🙂


  13. @BAF

    You know BU is always game for good discourse, the robust the better. However when it hits on our anonymity, we draw the line.

  14. Caswell Franklyn Avatar
    Caswell Franklyn

    I just saw Minister Michael Lashley on the CBC News where they highlighted that his child was being christened. Now my question; did Mr. Lashley attend at the Registration to register the child as we lesser mortals are required to do?


  15. @ David

    NO-ONE certainly not I have tried to strip away your anonymity What I have done is (a) to point out that for these posts, given your partisanship, for David read Amused; and (b) to say that that is not in the best traditions of BU. AND YOU KNOW THAT IS TRUE. The record on this matter is clear. Your comment to BAF is just another fudge. Perhaps you will now begin to act the independent moderator you are supposed to be – subject to all the bias’ we know you have. So do stop sulking.


  16. and David…….

    since you say ‘you will go after me’ – let me say – well, BAF would know this – I am ever-ready. OK? Now can we drop it? Up to you.


  17. @Casewell. I stand corrected on the matter of primogeniteur and my thanks to you for correcting me.

    @David. Given that certain people seem to wish to continue to try to “out” people and given that Barbados is a rumour mill, I may decide to exercise my option to indulge in a little, light gossip with my brothers. But my warning remains that if I find this jerk’s name as a candidate for either of the two major parties, I can and I will do all I can to ensure that they do not prevail in that seat.


  18. You comments have become disingenuous. You would be the first to mention that the DLP is the government of the day and therefore transgressions of the past like CLICO for example falls to Stuart and cohorts to solve. Try and keep it real and forget the pedantic business.”

    clearly you do not read my posts. i never blame governments in power for deficiencies in governing, i blame the system of governance. i offer facts, i cannot accuse persons of thiefing or corruption because i have never seen a govt official before the law courts.mr stuart is a victim of circumstances because he was thrust into a position for which he was not prepared. mr stuart was deputy prime minister for over three years and acting prime minister for over a year and revealed in an interview that his first visit to the prime minister’s office was on the day he assumed the prime ministership.
    while regulatory framework of the insurance industry might have been deficient under the previous administration who were summarily thrown out by the electorate because of their deficiencies and alleged corrupt practices; am i biased to raise the issue of the present administration’s lethargy, dipsy-dodling and other incoherent decison making on the clico issue which could have exacerbated the situation when possible timely and decisive action could have offered a more positive ray of hope for affected policlholders like me? must i forget mr stuart’s vitriol to punish with laughter miss mottley’s attempts to raise the issue in parliament? must i forget mr thompson’s injection of 10 million in taxpayers money into clico with the solemn expression that it was a well run companyand the revelation at a later date of the million dollar payments made to mr parris? if our prime minister as former legal advisor to clico gives me his word that the company was sound and well, then should not this statement give me a different view on the charges of incompetence laid against the regulators?
    these are things you should be highlighting not trying to label me. i have not gone to a political meeting since i976 and i was an ardent admirer of the under forties and was elated when the NDP was formed. i have never contributed one cent to a political institution and would continue to promote the idea that both parties are now damocles swords on the backs of barbadians and have outlived their usefulness. facts my friend are facts and by the word i just cannot understand your use of the word pedantic.


  19. “The PM, whether you like it or not, is an excellent lawyer”
    there we go again. it has nothing to do with whether i like it or not . all i am saying is that i have never heard of his exploits in matters of jurisprudence like for eample mr maurice king or even mr andrew pilgrim or mr alair shepherd or mr frederick smith. AS the highest legal officer in the land, mr stuart is reported to have given mr thompson incorrect advice as to the eligibilty within the law of mr gibson for the post of chief justice and lest we forget, he was publicly corrected by sir henry forde for incorrect remarks he made in new york about the law relating to illegitimacy but in all fairness i would subscribe that ‘one swallow does not make a summer’


  20. @David et al.

    A bit of a pickle huh? The sections quoted clearly state that a judge can only be removed from office for inability to perform due to ”discharge the functions of his office (whether arising from infirmity of body or mind or any other cause) or for misbehavior”.

    Thats clearly severely limits the scenarios of removal, to (a) physical or mental incapacity (b) any other cause or (c) misbehaviour.

    That would indicate that removal for alleged incompetence is a difficult allegation to remove for, save under ‘any other cause’.

    However, the ‘any other cause’, in the context of the parahraph, would seem to indicate a cause of special inability to discharge duties just for example, such a case as i would see it, being moving overseas for family reasons etc, which would make it difficult to discharge duties. One would in such a case expect reisignation, but you never know.

    The issue is that the inbuilt protection for judges from victimisation and political interference, has a double edge.

    It would appear that to do as some of you recommend, the Constitution itself requires changes, but is that a good thing? I think not.

    To me, the obvious solution, where a judge is simply (as alleged) not working out, is a discussion and an alternate placement, if accepted, in a diplomatic post or other.

    If not accepted, welll…..you have an unsolveable issue, if the Constituion is to be followed by the letter and also the substance.

    The Consitution is clear on the issue, no amount of wishing or wangling can get past that. The one opening, as I said may be the words /’any other cause’, but in the relevant context and correct interpretation do not allow much room for enabling action, save in an extremem case.


  21. Crusoe

    I just got an idea on getting rid of a Judge but I doubt you would want to hear it … 🙂


  22. can anyone tell me how long was the registrar appointed to her post and were there any cases/ and or the number of cases outstanding before she took up her post?


  23. Balance,

    Understand your point, unfortunately, does it really matter when the issue is allegedly one of lost files etc i.e. current issues? Under your watch, you hold the responsibility for events therein.

    On the issue of delays, all must take the blame, I hear of lawyers who constantly seek adjournments, but some want to put all the blame on the judges. Not saying that there is not some culpabaility and certainly it is up to the judges to tell the attorneys who ask for too many adjournemnt a strong no!

    But all must accept blame for this to move forward.

    However, on the issue of things such as missing files, that is so unusual and ties right into a spcific department. That is the issue.


  24. “Understand your point, unfortunately, does it really matter when the issue is allegedly one of lost files etc i.e. current issues? Under your watch, you hold the responsibility for events therein.”

    understand yours as well but it does matter to ensure that the present Registrar is not carrying the blame for matters which did not occur under her watch.True, she has a responsibilty to put the necessary systems in place to alleviate and regularise the situation but i reconise as well that we have a moral responsibilty to ensure that she is not pilloried unfairly. in addition, it is not lost on me that black bajans have a tendency to beat up on their own kind while on the other hand always wiiling to smilingly ignore the deficiencies of the other kind.

  25. Molly's Friend Avatar
    Molly’s Friend

    A current case dragging on for years, a file lost last week in the registry the same night it went in, a senior lawyer who acted for the client against a previous order of the Court, even doing so while the case was still in Court but neglected to tell the Court what he did. Guess it pays to be a Freemason. But then, some are just unlucky I mean having three business associates all die suddenly is the worst luck. One drown, one killed in a car accident and one murdered.

  26. Molly's Friend Avatar
    Molly’s Friend

    As they say be careful of the Company you keep, it could bring you into disrepute Just Like That.


  27. @Molly’sFriend

    Please feel free to send details. Confidentiality and anonymity is assured of course.

Leave a Reply to AmusedCancel reply

Trending

Discover more from Barbados Underground

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

Continue reading