Tales From The Courts Part VI – Chief Justice Marston Gibson Scores An F In Year One

Since writing the following article, it is reported in the Nation News that the Barbados Bar Association is contemplating strike action against the Supreme Court in general and the Chief Justice in particular. BU wishes to make it clear that the following report was written without knowledge of the position of the Barbados Bar Association and before the Nation report was published. BU extends its full support to the Barbados Bar Association in this instance and, depending upon circumstances, will revisit its comment that the Barbados Bar Association is toothless in due course.

Chief Justice Marston Gibson

The question we now have to address is this. AFTER A YEAR IN OFFICE, WHAT HAS THE CHIEF JUSTICE DONE?

The answer is, in sincere and flattering imitation of Freundel Stuart (the attorney-general who agreed to his appointment and the prime minister who changed the law so that no meritless challenges could be made to that appointment) the Chief Justice has done NOTHING. Except talk a lot.

The Chief Justice has talked about arbitration and ADR. Boy has he talked it to death. But yet we see no mechanism in place to make this (in appropriate circumstances) mandatory or even viable. Nor do we see a system of qualification for court-approved arbitrators, which basically means that any member of the Bar can be an arbitrator. A situation hardly likely to inspire confidence and cooperation in a public fed up with a toothless Bar Association and a disciplinary committee of same that allows attorneys to rip the public off left right and centre, without disbarring their tails.

So, apart from talking about ADR, the Chief Justice has done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to implement it. And absent any clear guidelines, the general public (which is not stupid) has realised that it is a haunt for cowboys and is keeping well away.

Relevant links:

The Chief Justice as a Judge

During his tenure of office of a year, the Chief Justice has written only one decision. A decision that he did not even take the time to deliver personally, but had it read to the court by Justice of Appeal Sandra Mason. And it was a matter of almost trite law. So, far from upgrading the standards of the judges on the bench by example, the Chief Justice appears to have adopted the principal “if you can’t beat them, join them”.

The Court of Appeal

The Chief Justice says that there are three hundred (300) appeals outstanding. We have to accept that number. We note there are five (5) justices of appeal of which only three (3) sit on any given appeal. So, BU’s question is that if there are 300 outstanding appeals with 5 justices of appeal of which only 3 sit at any given time, why is the Chief Justice now urging and requiring that the Court of Appeal sit for three days a week only? We fail to see the logic in that and, indeed, it looks as if the Bajan habit of paying public officials for doing nothing is well and thriving under the leadership of this Chief Justice.

BU also notes that there are a great number of appeals on which, 9 months and a year after hearing, decisions have not been rendered, thus breaching the constitutional rights of the litigants. Rights that each and every judge has sworn to uphold and who, hand on the Governor General’s Bible, have clearly lied and been foresworn.

Three out of five judges sit three days a week, which means that the other two are doing nothing and yet judgements are delayed beyond the time limit set for delivery. And this assists with getting rid of a backlog of 300 cases HOW?

Miss Elneth Kentish

In places like Canada, it used to be the practice by large and influential law firms to get rid of their unsatisfactory/incompetent senior members by arranging for them to be appointed to the Bench where, to quote one eminent queens counsel, “They became among the judges most often and successfully appealed.” In the case of Barbados, this practice would seem to apply to 100% of the Bench, but we are focussing here on the worst offender, Miss Elneth Kentish.

R.G. Mandeville & Co. clearly adopted this principal in getting rid of Miss Elneth Kentish, by brokering her “elevation” to the Barbados Bench, where she has distinguished herself mightily in many areas of law, including, but not limited to:

  • The largest number of successful appeals against her decisions.
  • The extraordinarily length of time (even by Barbados standards) it takes her to give these successfully appealed decisions.
  • The mirth and derision that the majority of her decisions cause within the legal fraternity, who explain their standpipe type hilarity with, “Well, you got to laugh otherwise you would have to cry.”
  • And finally, the only Barbados judge in history to be personally sued for failing to do her job as a judge and costing a litigant millions of dollars. The hearing of this action is being stalled by the legal fraternity as it is clear that as soon as it comes to the CCJ, it will succeed and Miss Kentish will have to be dismissed from the Bench. We refuse to refer to this female to any longer as “Madam Justice”.

For a while, all was relatively well as Miss Kentish was on long leave and was being replaced by the excellent Pamela Beckles. But all good things in Barbados’ justice system must, it appears, come to an end and Miss Kentish is back.

To make sure that no one misses the fact that she is back and on her usual, ground-breaking form, Miss Elneth Kentish has produced an order in which there are no parties and one of the purported parties has died and has not had an administrator appointed for them. But nonetheless, this person, un-named in the order, is ordered by Miss Kentish to perform certain things. Presumably from beyond the grave. Otherwise one has to imagine Miss Kentish will order that litigant’s remains to be exhumed and hanged in public for contempt to Miss Kentish and her court (common c).

Miss Kentish’s order is now being widely circulated within the legal profession to the disbelief of counsel and, of course, their hilarity. Comments out of respect for the BU family we withhold. But why SHOULD Miss Kentish pay ANY attention to the comments and views of counsel when clearly her boss, the Chief Justice, does not. And here is a case in point.

Kingsland/Justice Worrell and the Chief Justice

On Friday 28 September last, four queens counsel with their juniors and staff congregated at the Law Courts for the hearing of a constitutional motion by and against Justice Randall Worrell seeking, inter alia, that he recuse himself from a hearing of a review of costs ordered in 2002, 10 years ago, and as yet undetermined and unpaid. The fact that BU can ascertain no grounds whatever for recusal by Justice Worrell, is merely coincidental as BU does not choose to go into the lack of merit of the case.

BU notes that interest runs on those costs of well over $1 million at a rate of 8% per annum and that “allocaturs” (which, for the interest of Dr. GP and other language scholars, is from Latin allocatur, “it is allowed” and designates a certificate given by a registrar or taxing master at the termination of an action, where the amount costs is determined and ordered paid) were issued. The total sum was well over $1 million in total with pre and post judgement interest running at 8%. Therefore, calculated at 8% on just $1 million, the amount of costs now payable is well in excess of $2 million. The matter of these costs ordered/taxed by the Registrar in 2002 was appealed and set down before Justice Randall Worrell and remains (despite a minimum increment of $1 million due solely to judicial sloth, incompetence and delay) outstanding.

You would think that this would be a very simple matter of housekeeping, so why is there delay? It should be akin to cleaning up a spilled cup of coffee in your kitchen. And indeed it would be, except in Barbados where, in typical form, the Registrar has lost her file by which she calculated and determined the costs. But it appears that this file, years later, has been re-located and is “awaiting signature” as if placing a signature is a matter of considerable difficulty for the person in question.

Meanwhile, even if these notes were NOT available (and they have only just been rediscovered) Justice Worrell, had the right in law, whether he knows this or not, to re-hear the costs matter. However, Justice Worrell appears to have done the judicial equivalent of a spoiled brat running to get his parents to intervene in a childhood dispute.

Justice Worrell has run screaming to the Chief Justice, who has responded in resplendent Barbados judicial, as opposed to parental, form. Had the Chief Justice responded in resplendent Barbados parental form, he would have boxed Justice Worrell’s ears and told him to grow up and deal with it.

The Chief Justice waited until all counsel were present in court and then sent his clerk to inform them that, “Justice Worrell will not sit on any further matters dealing with Kingsland.” This, instead of directing an e-mail to the four (4) queens counsel involved, telling them not to attend on Friday 28 September. And what is wrong with that, you ask?

As has been noted in the past, the fees of queens counsel in Barbados likely top $1,000 per hour and each of those queens counsel, it is understood, had a junior at $500 per hour. The prep time would have been a few hours and counsel would bill for half a day of their time. So, a timely e-mail which would have avoided expense was eschewed by the CJ in favour of a message delivered late by his clerk that will have cost the litigants over $30,000. Let us assure readers that these $30,000 in costs will have to be borne solely by the litigants.

BU has declined to comment on merit of the actual case, BUT BU asks the Chief Justice politely, but with rapidly diminishing respect, on what legal basis he removes a sitting judge from matters part-heard before that judge?

This is not a question that seeks to expose matters of national security, merely of total judicial incompetence. We require an answer. If one is not forthcoming to us, we have every reasonable expectation that the Chief Justice will find himself compelled to answer the question to a higher authority. And we will be there to report his answer.

BU takes great pleasure in posting the letter from Mr Clyde Turney QC to the Chief Justice asking precisely the same question, couched in what, for a senior lawyer, is very uncompromising language. The Chief Justice is quite adept at leaking his replies to letters to the blogs, so we look forward to him leaking his response to Mr Turney’s letter so that Barbados can be fully informed and, like the adults we are, be enabled to form our own opinions.

But, what of the litigants themselves in this matter where costs were ordered in 2002 for an action commencing, we have determined, in 1998? How has this affected them and where are they today?

Imagine, if you will, being owed hundreds of thousands of dollars each that you have had to expend on a case and which money (in part) the courts have ordered must be paid back to you. Would any of BU’s family and readers consider it acceptable to be told not to worry because interest is running at 8%? Is this an assurance you can take to the bank when you need to pay for medical treatment for yourself or a loved one? Or when your house roof starts to leak? Or you have no food to eat? On the contrary, this assurance will not stop starvation, soaking or sickness and death.

So, BU has checked on the status of the litigants.

The Plaintiff

Much has been written here on BU about the Plaintiff, Mrs Marjorie Knox. BU will not reprise that here, but refers any new readers unfamiliar with the case to its report of June 24, 2010 to be found here.

BU’s latest information on Mrs Knox is:

  • Mrs Knox, resides in Miami, Florida with her daughter, Kathleen Davis.
  • Mrs Knox is 90 years old and on the evidence of her Ontario lawyer’s files, senile and in need to constant supervision.
  • Mrs Knox, or those acting in her name, commenced proceedings in Florida back in 2010 against essentially the same persons and for essentially the same reasons as the litigations (determined and ongoing) in Barbados.
  • For Mrs Knox to stand any hope of success in bringing these actions in Florida, it is required that she be a resident of Florida and try to establish a link between Florida and an action about property located in Barbados brought against Bajans. For Mrs Knox to live anywhere BUT Florida would certainly make it impossible for her to get the Florida courts to accept jurisdiction.
  • Despite the legal and tactical reasons why his client is, at her own volition and for her own ends, a resident of Florida and not of Barbados, BU heard Mr Alair Shepherd state to the CCJ this year that the reason for Mrs Knox’s residence in Florida and not in Barbados was because of physical threats to her safety.
  • The CCJ has recently delivered a judgment in which it is clear that it has believed Mr Shepherd’s incomplete advises to it. We note that the CCJ is linked to BU and it is therefore hoped that it will now note its error, caused by Mr Shepherd’s omissions. Indeed, the matter of Mrs Knox’s safety and security and the threats she purports to have received were the subject of an extensive hearing in Ontario, both before Justice Bryan Shaughnessy and on appeal before Justice Howden. We refer the CCJ to these judgements, containing as they do an authoritative report from an FBI expert. The matter of Mrs Knox’s security aside, however, BU’s legal eagles scrutinised the central thrust of the CCJ decision, being a question of garnishment and costs, and agrees with its findings on these issues and with Mr Shepherd’s submissions, excluding his untruthful and disingenuous comments about Mrs Knox being in danger in Barbados.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of Mrs Knox’s conduct and situation, it is reprehensible that the Barbados Courts have, to all intents and purposes, doubled the amount she will be required to pay in costs and interest, due to delay. But, and here we post the response of Mr Alair Shepherd QC to Mr Turney’s letter and let the public of Barbados interpret it as they will, maybe Mrs Knox (or whoever is guiding her hand as she signs things) wants it that way.

And what has happened to Mrs Knox’s sibling defendants, Muriel, Vere, Eric and Keith Deane during the last 10 years waiting for the hundreds of thousands of dollars of costs to be repaid to them?

· Muriel Deane DEAD!

· Vere Deane DEAD!

· Eric Deane DEAD!

· Keith Deane is in his 90s and is Mrs Knox’s sole surviving sibling.

Defendant Philip Vernon Nicholls, the senior partner of the law firm of Cottle Catford & Co., is involved in the winding up of Cottle Catford and with certain financial problems and irregularities on which BU has already touched in a previous report. Doubtless, matters would be considerably improved for Mr Nicholls if he could avail himself of the costs owed him by Mrs Knox the delay in payment of which appears to be having a knock-on effect on certain clients of Cottle Catford.

The Chief Justice’s Report Card

The answer to the question of the Chief Justice’s report card is that he has resoundingly and comprehensively FAILED in all subjects. Except talk! He is good at talk. He is, to put it mildly, a great disappointment to BU which backed and fully supported his appointment and is now going to recognise its error and cut its losses.

The Solution

A new government under the BLP is now highly likely and we all know the position of the BLP on the matter of the appointment of Marston Gibson as Chief Justice. Therefore, we urge the Chief Justice to start to do his job forthwith and to take proper legal advice and to make every effort to regain the confidence of the majority of the legal profession that he has completely lost. The Chief Justice will have noticed that the honeymoon is now well over and divorce proceedings are now the order of the day.

The Alexandra Commission of Inquiry and Report

As the next step in the process happens to be the courts, it is probably right that it should form a part of this report. Unsurprisingly, given the number of documents that have (most properly in our view) found their way into the public domain in this PUBLIC INQUIRY, the Report, which has now been out for over a week, has not been made public – not even to counsel concerned. But worse, it has been secreted from the people who paid for it – the taxpayers.

And speaking of paying, it is reported that Milton Pierce and his staff (counsel for the Inquiry) have been part-paid for their work, but neither counsel for the BSTU or for Mr Broomes have received one red cent in remuneration for their many hours of work. And in addition to all that, the transcripts of several days of hearings have not been made available.

BU intends to continue this series and to out every story it comes it way dealing with this mockery that is called a Justice System. We have already had significant success in redressing certain wrongs. Therefore, we urge the general public to send us its stories. Be assured that these will be sensitively handled and, where in doubt, BU has its own legal eagles to advise it, so that our sources are looked after and protected.

Only by bringing everything that is wrong with the Justice System in Barbados into the light and naming and shaming, not only in Barbados, but in the wider international legal community that now reads BU, will we get anywhere. We will turn these incompetents into standing jokes so that wherever they go they will know that no one takes them seriously and they are figures of contempt.

79 thoughts on “Tales From The Courts Part VI – Chief Justice Marston Gibson Scores An F In Year One


  1. Bare in mind the swift legislative juggling and law changes to ensure that this was THE MAN!

    Another failing choice for the government as well?

    re The Alexandra Commission of Inquiry and Report, the outcome of this much match the purpose of the Commission. Nuff said.

    Just observing.


  2. Wait Davie,

    Tek it light nah …! This is Foundation time. Don’ give these Kolij and Cawmere buffoons the chance to say I told you so … Tek it light … HA HA HA


    • @BAFBFP

      You have been contributing to BU long enough to know the household calls it straight, no Bull no BS.


  3. David,
    I feel your pain. To think of all the effort and time you and Amused put in to make the case for Marston Gibson, I am sorry to see that disappointment has set in.

    We knew it was wrong to change the constitution to suit one man because if he turn out to be a disappointment, people would say, “see after all that, he was the wrong man”!

    Maybe, Mr Gibson thought that the job was merely ceremonial like the GG’s!


    • @Prodigal Son

      He still has BU support but yes after year one his performance falls way short of our high expectation of him.


    • Has anyone caught sight of the AX Warrant? Did it speak to how parties would be reimbursed?

      The point worth mentioning is what has happened to Patrick Hoyos coverage of the Kingsland matter which got a lot of airplay on BU. If memory serves he wrote a couple of articles in the early days and then dropped the issue like a hot potato.


    • Maybe the government and the Fourth Estate have not grasped it yet but there is an effort by some to remain strident about the need to change the way we do business in Barbados. If the BLP wins the next government it should avoid the mistakes of past and remain true to the ideals of representing/doing the people’s business. The Fourth Estate needs to understand as well it can be a news maker and not content itself with simply reporting news all the time.


  4. David

    Chief Justice Marston Gibson might still have your support, but you have my respect. You were the most vocal supporter of his appointment and now you are honest enough to call a spade, a spade.

    I, on the other was perceived as one of opponents which is was never the case. I merely pointed out that he was not qualified in accordance with the law. And even when they changed the law, he still did not meet the requirements of the amendment. Government wanted their man, now they have him: I hope that they are happy because they will be the only ones.


  5. Thanks Caswell yes a lot of egg cleaning from the face but it is what it is. Perhaps you can use any influence at the Nation newspaper to have it allocate time to covering the issues embedded in our justice system. Many of the issues are known to senior members of the Bar. The avoidance by Ezra Alleyne, Fred Gollop, Audain et al who have close association with the paper to deal with the pressing issues in editorials is a dereliction of duty as a member of the Fourth Estate to say the least.


    • David

      The first problem with traditional media in this country is that they hear the term “sub judice” and without fully understanding what it entails, they avoid commenting on any issues that are before the court.

      The term comes from two Latin words, sub meaning under and judice meaning judgement. When a matter is before the court pending a decision it is said to be “sub judice”. If the media comments on any matter that is under judgement in a way that it would affect witnesses or the ones making the decision, they would be in contempt of court. Fortunately every comment is not contempt but out of an abundance of caution they opt not to comment. In the Barbados context you should only be in contempt if your comments are capable of influencing a jury or witnesses in a criminal case or witnesses in a civil case. My reasoning is that we do not have juries in civil cases, and certainly a legally trained judge should not be influenced by comments in the media.

      Secondly, people are afraid to comment adversely on the inept work of some judges because they believe that they might some day find themselves before the particular judge that they criticize. They do not want to take that chance. FEAR!!


  6. I have always felt that there was nothing wrong with farming out such responsibilities to the best possible candidate without consideration to nationality. The problem with small populations is that it is damned near impossible to find the combination of skills necessary to do the best job. Sure the post requires an excellent academic, which affords the occupant an easier path in garnering respect from his charge, but then there is the assessment of administrative ability. Gibson I believe was used to having a staff of one. (Gibson sweet doh … he should be in politics … HA HA HA)

    Look the present post of BIDC CEO is filled by a man (Leroy) who has proven himself as an excellent researcher. He also has some experience in administration, but has he EVER worked on the revenue generating side of an operation ..(which should be the true qualification for CEO status)?


  7. @Caswell

    If this is the mindset of out Fourth Estate and others in civil society then we are screwed.

    @Just Asking

    Would 4 and half years be enough time?


    • David

      The media houses, with the exception of CBC who is in business to spread government propaganda, are in business of making money, not educating the masses.


  8. Scrupie is reading between the lines and believes that Leroy is being recompensed for all the wrong that was done to him. Twice deprived of an opportunity to be nominated for St John before David and after David. Just a chance to right the wrongs. After all he is a big talker and his skills will be needed.


  9. Has anyone read the “relevant links”? I am not a lawyer but can it be correct that “On the 12 November 2012 the claimant filed an application in the Action” or a lawyer could ask the court “to set the application filed on the 8th day of November 2012”.
    I would say “just asking” but someone else should do that.


  10. Agreed Srupie, Leroy get unfair, but I am just tired of these key flag ship, make or break responsibilities going to hacks (not a kind choice of words) as a means to right a wrong. The CEO’s of the BIDC, BTA and Invest Barbados should be people skilled in the art of revenue generation. The people who chair the funding decision committees of the Government sponsored lending agencies should have a strong sense of national vision and a sentimental attachment to productive effort and I find nothing wrong with outsourcing the talent.


  11. I am thinking 5 YEARS
    You backed the man and now backing out
    WHY DID YOU BACK HIM IN THE FIRST PLACE?
    WHY ARE YOU BACKING OUT ON HIM NOW ?

    JUST ASKING


  12. With the greatest possible regret, I have to agree with every word written in this report. The Chief Justice has been the biggest possible disappointment to me. I suppose that it you live and work for many years in a jurisdiction where, for the most part, judges are elected rather than appointed, you tend to focus on different priorities, i.e. talk and electioneering and PR as opposed to doing the job and administering and administrating justice. I shudder to contemplate the fact that this is a relatively young man and that we may be saddled with his sort of rubbish until he is 70. Hopefully, he will provide sufficient grounds for the removal of a Chief Justice under the Constitution, or he will do the job that he has the undoubted knowledge and acumen to do and which he is most certainly NOT doing right now.

    Briefly, let me comment specifically on the report and then get a few hours sleep. In this instance, my silence will denote consent or agreement with what the report says.

    Kentish. Hopeless. Not a clue what she is doing. Yes, she did issue an order without parties. Yes, I have seen it. Yes, she has ostensibly directed her order to a deceased person. Comment of most of the attorneys contains the words stupid, another word denoting fornication and the last word is used to denote a female dog, a designation with which I concur – have thought so for many years.

    Kingsland. Disgraceful. You cannot replace a sitting judge in a part-heard matter. The real and potent potential for injustice is vast and obvious to anyone with any small minute amount of legal training or a vestige of brain. I agree with Mr Turney QC. And on the Kingsland matter, thanks to BU’s reports and plethora of original documentation, I have been able to follow this and I would like to know why the Attorney-General has not stepped into this case and had Mrs. Knox declared a “vexatious litigant”. There is abundant and irrefutable grounds for such an application the granting of which is completely within the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. That this has not been done long since shows that the problem with Barbados’ Justice System extends to and includes the office of a completely useless attorney-general. So maybe, despite my extremely grudging and apathetic support for Freundel Stuart (who is as big a disappointment as the Chief Justice) we need a change of executive.

    AX: True. Not all the transcripts have been provided. Only the Commission counsel has been paid and then only part paid. There is not even the slightest whiff of information as to the contents of a report of a public inquiry for which the PUBLIC was expensed a declared $600,000, which I can assure you will have been far higher than $600,000. Disgraceful.

    @Casewell. I am encouraged to see that someone writing at the Nation has at least an idea, if incomplete, on the application of “sub judice” to press reports. As a general rule of thumb, your comments will serve. Now, let me see how you get on with persuading the Nation that you are right.

    @Caswell Franklyn | October 1, 2012 at 9:52 PM |”The media houses, with the exception of CBC who is in business to spread government propaganda, are in business of making money, not educating the masses.” Therefore, it has to be assumed that the “business of making money” is better served for the Nation under a BLP government? Will you be so kind as to explain why that is and why the reverse appears to be true for the Advocate?

    @ St George’s Dragon | October 1, 2012 at 10:00 PM. Well spotted. BUT, sadly typical of the chambers of certain counsel.

    @JUST AXEING. Have you the slightest idea the amount of chaos this man can cause in 5 years? Have you any idea the amount of chaos the courts are already in? If he is not going to do the job properly, remove him NOW, not 5 years down the road when idiots like you are moaning about the lack of foreign business and capital coming into Barbados as a direct result of a judicial system in which no one in the world has any vestige of confidence. Do you get the big picture now? This is not just about the justice system, it impacts the well-being of every single Bajan in Barbados. If the CJ is not up to the job, then he should go NOW!!!


  13. Just one other point, David. I also read the judgement of the Privy Council from its sitting in Barbados a few months ago. I agree with its decision. It has long concerned me that security for costs are seen as a means of preventing appeals and, as such, in improperly or too liberally applied, are unjust. The CCJ decision is, therefore, an important one and one, moreover, with which I completely agree. The question of garnishment is one with which I also, in the circumstances, agree.

    However, the CCJ judgement falls down in respect of its espousal of the submissions of Mr Shepherd QC on the matter of the reasons why Mrs Knox lives in Florida. And if, as you suggest, Mrs Knox is subject to senile dementia, it would explain exactly why Mr Shepherd’s cases are reliant on affidavits from John Knox and not from Mrs Knox herself. For, if the affidavits of John Knox are admitted by the courts, then it is John Knox who is cross-examined on his affidavits and not Mrs Knox. In this way, Mrs Knox’s mental state is not discovered and documents signed and actions instructed by her are not questioned as to their validity.

    I think, therefore, that it ought to be looked at as to whether there are sufficient grounds for the courts of whichever jurisdiction, whether Barbados or Florida or Ontario, to order that Mrs Knox be subjected to a, independent, court-ordered full medical and psychiatric evaluation. If she is found to lack the mental competence required by these courts, then the courts have a process for dealing with this.

    When I read that there was evidence in Mrs Knox’s Ontario counsel’s files to support questioning Mrs Knox’s mental competence, I started to be concerned. If accurate and proved, it demonstrates some very questionable practices on the parts of a number of persons. It might be akin to seniors abuse.


  14. Well……..I am thinking of all those who, in earlier months, proclaimed Gibson as the saviour, who embraced every word of the ‘leaked’ emai which so adroitly shifted the focus to others, who toadied around the man worshipping his every footstep. And now BU supports strike action, this same BU who had NOTHING good to say about the prologue to the leaked email in terms of the efforts of the BA to seek change – and all those who vilified the rest of us for taking a different stand.

    Well…….I suppose repentance is always to be welcomed and it cannot be bad that the razor tongues busily inventing have been silenced in the name of the spirit of truth.

    Glad to be back…..LOL


  15. @ Amused | October 2, 2012 at 2:49 AM |

    Far from being “amused’ we are most impressed.
    Very impressed indeed!
    Your submission is required reading for Mia for she is the only one who can really make a difference to save Bim from this morass of incompetence and shame. If this is what we get from free university training, well Barbados’s political social and economic geese will soon be fully cooked with the country continuing to slide down the UNDP HDI ladder.

    The bedrock of any democracy and civil society is the Law and its application and dispatch to ensure justice is served. As things stand with our Justice System there is little hope of ever becoming a so-called developed nation thus remaining forever a developing place with all the growing characteristics of a banana republic of West African hue.
    Barbados is now seen as a teenager who showed obvious potential for achieving great things despite growing up in a challenging resource scare environment but has now- through indiscipline, mixing with the “wrong” company and enticed into using dope and demanding material excesses- has now gone off the rails and is about to flounder to end up in the prison for young offenders for a long time with the next transfer to a jail for hardened criminals.

    Only a Pol Pot type revolution to eliminate these academic and professional quacks will suffice to save the nation from the destructive force of these social and economic parasites.

    The CJ needs to appreciate that his one-year honeymoon of socializing, meeting and greeting who-is-who on the cocktail circuit is now over. He needs to get on with the job or is this a classic example of the Peter Principle at work?
    It would be a politically embarrassing disaster and a total letdown to the local legal alumni of the UWI if he proves to be one of those cases of a person with sterling academic success but demonstrates a total disconnect between theory (book learning) and practice (on-the-job performance). As the old folks used to say: “Edication ain’t Commonsense”. If so he should consider his North American options under a new political dispensation as is expected in his previous neck of the judicial woods.

    Thanks again, Amused. By their fruits we shall know them. You have won a special place in the hearts of the BU family members fighting for Truth & Justice in our little fast disappearing paradise of a democracy once the No.1 in the developing World.


  16. @Miller. Thank you, but the credit is due to David and BU of which I am merely (and happily) a family member. Your comments are not only poetic, but display to those with eyes to see and ears to hear the degree of desperation that you and the majority of us feel. But they also rouse us from the apathy that was threatening to engulf and give us back our courage and will to fight on. They provoked in me a change of heart. I will now be voting BLP, and, as you well know, primarily because of Mia.

    And Mia, if you are reading this as I suspect you are, timing is everything and it is your time NOW. You are a member of the Inner Bar, an MP, a former attorney-general and likely, post elections, the new attorney-general. In you, as in no other member of your party, resides the respect and hope of the vast majority of the electorate, especially in the matter of our defunct justice system. This is the moment and only you have the national credibility and status to seize it. Ignore the mean-spirited gossip – like, believe me, 99% of the electorate does. Whether you and some others like it or not, you are our beacon and with all the shit we Bajans have had to go through, we desperately need that beacon. So please keep burning bright.


  17. Wait, Ross is back …! HA HA HA.

    Miller

    You luvs this Mia chick nah … You toooo close. You have to step back a bit buddy, quite a bit, ’cause she ain’ all dah small. What makes Mottley look good is the fact that she stands among a group of Jack Ass egomaniacs, that is all …! But Mottley , like the rest of them, is an image, a facade, but that is politics.


  18. To Carl Moore’s submission this morning the point must remain top of mind that the success/efficiency of the Bar Association is bound up the efficiency of the CJ’s Office. The relationship is partially symbiotic.


  19. @ BAFBFP | October 2, 2012 at 9:16 AM |

    I prefer Mia because she is the “least worst” of the lot. I don’t think she would steal to get personally rich.

    If Sinckliar wasn’t so blatant in his lying excuses, intellectually dishonest and lacking in integrity I would give him a chance ahead of Stuart and Owen.

    The same way you prefer Dennis and Peter who nearly revealed you identity this morning and exposed you ‘Lodge’ ties. (LOL!!)


  20. @ BAF

    Well yes…and isn’t everyone pleased?…lol

    @ Miller

    Do be careful……when someone gives their support in this way it really isn’t a good omen……but i note it’s assumed someone else is listening. Oh dear. Plus ca change…..


  21. @ robert ross | October 2, 2012 at 12:53 PM |

    I take note of your advice. But believe you me my selection is genuine but the choice of adjectives was done in a tongue-in-cheek way to neutralize the extreme view BAF has of politicians.

    Mia has no greater champion of her goal and no keener admirer of her abilities than the miller( bar Amused of course) on this blog.

    Remember that two negatives make a political positive.
    Mature, Indefatigable and Able (MIA) for PM.


  22. @ Miller

    I don’t doubt YOUR sincerity one jot and, in fact, I am with you. But then the moving finger wrote and then moved on as I think you realise. As for BAF – well as much as I love him he still hasn’t come up with the T shirt – so what can one say?

    @ BU

    Bunions need surgery. Try honest to goodness open sandals.


  23. @millertheanunnaki | October 2, 2012 at 1:31 PM | “Mature, Indefatigable and Able (MIA) for PM.” Yes please!!!! And four years ago, I would not have thought that. But in recent years, she has shown all the attributes and promise of a truly great statesman.


  24. ALL AH WUNNA OVERLOOKIN’ ONE BIG SPOILER … SHE IS A MEMBER OF THE LEGAL FRATERNITY, AN ASSOCIATION THAT FOR TOO LONG HAS BEEN ANSWERABLE ONLY TO ITSELF AND IS IN NEED OF SERIOUS REFORM FROM WITHOUT …! Lawyers thrive in traditional environments so she will have NO reason to significantly change the status quo and the way business is conducted. She is a Negro-con. She represents an association that seeks to have ultimate control over the billions of dollars that represents the tax purse, an association that does NOT even see it fit to be registered in anyway or have a sufficient legal presence to be pursued in the event of there being improper conduct by any of its official members. A political party is for all intents and purposes a fake entity, a ghost club, and she is a member of one of them. So keep your accolades for someone more deserving …


  25. @BAFBFP. You hand your accolades to whoever you choose and let Miller and myself choose the recipient of ours.


  26. One day a device will be made that would allow the blindest of people to see. When that day comes you and my friend Miller will no longer have an excuse …!


  27. Now that Bail is a hot potato and the misuse of the Bail Act by magistrates is beginning to be seen as the scandal it is, will BU agree with me that it is time for the Court of Appeal to lay down very clear guidelines for the appropriate application of the Act?


    • Robert Ross

      The Rt. Excellent Errol Barrow has been attributed with saying that if you want justice stay out of Coleridge Street. Now since the High Court has moved, it should now be, if you want justice stay away from White Park Road. However, that would not be enough, the caution should also be extended to include the magistrates’s courts. Something needs to be done about the rough justice that is dispensed by magistrates. Your point about about the Bail Act is well taken. I have seen where a magistrate blackmailed an accuse into changing his plea by denying bail, telling the accused that he is sending him up to let him see what jail is like. That is not a reason to refuse bail. That magistrate should have been sued or disciplined but these abuses are only done to poor defenseless, mostly black, poorly educated young men who just accept this crap.


    • Is the issue raised here on the agenda of the Bar Association? Has there been written representation from them on this matter?


  28. @ Caswell and David

    Both Mottley and Holder have spoken out – at last someone has. Much, but not all, of the nonsense goes on in Bannister’s Court. Thus far this week two cases came my way where the prosecution did not object to bail but Bannister refused it. Neither was “defenceless”. Oh and there is Lani Daisley – who seemingly lost her cool at the Port and was required to find a surety.

    I am not aware that the BA has it as a firm item on the agenda. Mind – there was an attempt to mount a seminar recently with Cheltenham and Pilgrim as speakers. There was insufficient support. The present BA agenda with the CJ is seemingly an enhanced agenda following the proposals from the BA last December which the CJ ignored and which led to the (in)famous leaked email after an understandably snotty letter from the President.


  29. @ Amused…
    I WILL NOT BELIEVE YOU until / unless you give me some more details of your claim that Justice Kentish made an order in a ” Matter ” THAT HAD NO PARTIES . IT JUST CANNOT BE TRUE . Granted it will be difficult to give details if your claim is correct ; but the suit No. should help you to provide the proof . So please help in the situation . This is serious . How did the matter get to court if there were NO PARTIES . Against whom was the order made ? Who would have the right to enforce if somebody / something fails to comply ? Mr / Miss / Ms AMUSED , I DO NOT BELIEVE YOU . You must produce the evidence to save your reputation …


  30. @Puzzled!! It is not my fault if a copy of the judgement has not yet come your way. I confess that I was surprised that BU knew about it. I was shown the judgement because, like you, I refused to believe that she could actually be stupider than I already thought she was. I am admitting fault in this particular blog, so I have no problem admitting that I was wrong and she is actually stupider than I thought.

    I did not note the number of the case, because I was busy picking up my chin off the floor. But will, just for you, see if I can get it for you. However, if it has crossed your desk before I get the number for you, please just post a note here to let me know. Suggested wording: “Dear Amused, I was wrong. You are not a liar and we have a moron on the bench.” To which I will respond, “Only one?” I will then send the number to David and ask that he pass it on to you. I will not post it here and enjoin that neither do you. And I, sir, am not in the habit of lying, but will excuse you on the grounds that when I was told of it with the words, “Hey, look what that stupid “fornicating female dog” (or similar words to that effect) has done,” I too thought it was a lie. It wasn’t.


    • Amused

      I am not in the habit of calling people that I don’t know liars, but you must admit that this story is more than a little hard to swallow. If what you are saying is proven to be accurate, I believe that the judge would only have one honourable way out and that would be to retire. If the Barbados courts system it is not already the laughingstock of the Caribbean, this is guaranteed to get us there. I hope that it isn’t so.


  31. No, NO. The course of action should be that if Amused is unable to produce the number, then he should retire from this blog …. Fornicate Affirmative …!


  32. @Casewell. Agree. Very hard to believe. I agree with you also that, if true, the judge is honour bound to resign. And the judge, who is sworn to uphold the law and truth and justice, knows whether it is true or not. So, if it IS true and KNOWING that it is true, it is up to the judge, if that judge indeed does have the moral prerequisited for the job, to do the right and honourable thing. It is not something to deny, until proof is presented to the general public. After all, our judges are appointed, not elected, so the criteria and malpractices of elections do not apply.Would you not agree?


    • Amused

      I am not going to make fun of the judge if this report turns out to be true. You know what they say: what ain’t ketch yuh en pass yuh; my father also suffered with Alzheimer’s disease, so I don’t know if my time will come. I can say to you though that a judge can be removed from office if he/she is suffering with an infirmity of the mind.


  33. @ Amused .
    I assure you that I will use my best endeavour to try and acquire a copy of that order . I however do no hold out high hopes of getting it because your information JUST CANNOT BE TRUE . At least let me rephrase and say I HOPE it is not true . If / when I get it I shall, with all due deference to you do as you requested . However Mr / Mrs / Miss / Ms Amused I must admit to you that I am in a state of mortal fear that you are indeed telling the truth .


  34. On the question of falsehood…..did the visitation from the CCJ to try to sort us out actually take place in August as BU reported it would? I was in foreign parts and really have no idea whether it did.


  35. I have just read the ‘Kentish Report’. Someone clearly doesn’t like her very much – and there’s the problem. Much of what is written is mere assertion and any of us could do that about anybody else and get away with it – beause it is hardly likely that she will answer. I don’t regard any of it as responsible journalism. “Sensitive handling” clearly works both ways.

    And on the subject of “mere assertion” – will someone enlighten me on what matters BU has “had significant success with in redressing certain wrongs”. It would be nice if it were true. Is it?.


  36. @ robert ross
    If you did in fact read the report why do you not tell us all whether what Amused said is factual ?


  37. @ watching

    I think you misunderstand me….and understandably I think. By the “Kentish Report’ I meant the saga about Kentish in this post, the sense of which is nothing new on BU.. I have not read the record of the case Amused refers to but if he, or some other, does let us have the case number I would be happy to try and find it. Amused shouldn’t have too much difficulty getting it since he clearly knows someone who has the report well enough. A phone call would do the trick.


  38. @ Amused !!
    Horror of horrors ! I must admit YOU ARE CORRECT . I SAW THE ORDER. I could not believe my eyes after the legal friend who showed me the order explained the full implications . his view was the judge should be dismissed . I do not think i have to expand any further on this very embarrassing judicial occurrence ; I would only say that AMUSED has been vindicated .


  39. And moreover BU hasn’t though with its in-house legal team it clearly has access to a document which is ‘widely circulated’ amongst the legal fraternity. After all, it purported to publish its effect.

    I’m glad it has now been accepted that the CJ is adept at leaking responses to blogs. Some of us suggested that the infamous leaked email in response to Pilgrim back in March (was it?) was not as ‘straight’ as BU supposed it to be – and boy didn’t we get licks for suggesting such a thing. Then the email was used by BU to cane the BA. Actually isn’t it about time that the boys at BU said to RR over a number of matters – ‘Actually you got it right…thankyou’ – but I’m not holding my breath and have no reason to think any of them are big enough for that. And the questions I raised above? Any answers? All ‘pedantry’ of course. Gee.


  40. @Puzzled. So, as you can see, there are morons on the bench. Indeed, I am now firmly of the opinion that the head of the Justice System is also a moron.


  41. …and by now you must also be ready to accept that the Bushman is a visionary too ….Right Amused…? 🙂


  42. @ Amused

    Since you are a ‘straight bat’ person yourself, I am sure you will acknowledge that it was RR who counselled caution about him months ago. I’m not clear whether it’s moronic behaviour or laziness or both. And it’s sad – because he does seem a nice man. BTW – has he given the judgment, on behalf of the CA, in the ‘gun’ case yet? The judgment was promised in June I think.


  43. @Bushy. Why the tone of surprise? I have ALWAYS accepted that you are a visionary………….with the occasional hallucination thrown in…………to make you human like the rest of us.


  44. @ BAF

    There does seem a curious difficulty getting this case number doesn’t there? That someone else has ‘seen’ the report and ‘corroborates’ Amused is not really very helpful. Neither is BU’s silence. Ah well……All these legal eagles who’ve read the bloody case and not one comes up with the number. Hilarious innit?


  45. @ Puzzled. I am greatly amused that a certain member of the Bar seems unable to get their hands on the Order of a certain judge, other than of course, going to the Registry and performing a search which, inevitably, would reveal the presence of what they are hoping (and suggesting) is not there. I am not disposed to assist or facilitate them. In fact, I totally refuse to do so out of sheer, unadulterated bloody-mindedness, which is my right – and I urge you (your choice of course) to follow my lead. It would also seem that the brethren, by their apparent reticence in sharing certain information with this individual, are in effect telling him to trot off into the sunset.

    To me, the point is this and this alone. The Order was handed down and does exist. The Chief Justice knows it exists, the Registrar knows that it exists and the Attorney-General, if he has not seen it, is perfectly entitled to assure himself that it exists – and all to take action. However, most importantly, the judge herself knows that it exists and that she has done something for which she should instantly resign. That many members of the Inner Bar have seen the Order is not really relevant at this stage, although it may become so if the matter is not properly addressed. That one member of the Bar (not the Inner Bar, thank the Lord) whom everyone wishes would just trot off into the sunset, has his knackers in a twist because he is not (and never will be) on the inner information highway, is totally and completely irrelevant. And I have no intention of elevating his irrelevance by providing him ANY information upon demand. This is a blog, not a discovery process.

    @BAF. I have absolutely no recollection of having vindicated your ass. Indeed, the thought of any proximity to your ass is deeply disturbing.


  46. Amused wrote “However, most importantly, the judge herself knows that it exists and that she has done SOMETHING for which she should instantly RESIGN.”

    The above could probably be said for 75% of the members of the legalised extortion profession in Barbados.


  47. Amused

    Frankly…you are a total fraud who has no interest in the truth and everything you write demonstrates it. Do you really think that everyone is taken in by your nonsense? Look up at the stars and reflect on what you might have been. Oh – and stop talking to yourself.


  48. As long as Lawyers continue to live in Sandy Lane Estate,Fort George Heights and Royal West Moreland the status quo will remain.

    Lawyers in Barbados become millionaires from a system that is flawed and some of the flaws create profit centres for them.

    CJ Gibson will just have to go with the flow and enjoy the elite party circuit.


  49. Retraction. I don’t know any Bajan Lawyers who live at Royal West Moreland.
    I was thinking of the Lobbyist and he is not a Lawyer.


  50. Hants
    Following is a depiction of the magnitude of the problem …:-

    Freundal Stuart
    Wilfred Abrahams
    Santia Bradshaw
    Kenneth Best
    Desmond Sands
    Verla De Peiza
    Mia Mottley
    Ronald Toppin
    Francis Depeiza
    Stephen Lashley
    Edmund Hinkson
    Arthur Holder
    Michael Lashley
    Adriel Brathwaite
    Gregory Nicholls
    Kerri Symmonds
    Lynette Eastmond
    George Payne
    Dale Marshall
    Michael Carrington


  51. Revolution… be careful what you wish for.. you may get it.

    It does not come without some culling, invariably very few come without loss of life.

    That we must have change, without doubt.

    That said change must be radical, that goes without saying cause with the cadre of bumbling dimwits like Jones in Education and Sealy in Tourism, Toppin in Commerce and Gill, the walking rum bottle, to be returned to Parliament building, in the next General Election, Bajan are going into a proverbial cryogenic chamber without the necessary nutrients for survival for the 5 five years and certainly, not for 100.


  52. David/BU

    What about an article or something on these recent events within the legal circles;

    1.Alair Shepherd skinning he botsy at a judge and he ain’t get a day;

    2.Phillip nicchols son of the FTC man charged for money laundering and tiefing client’s money;

    3.Rita evans another lawyer got chopped up by an assailant and no robbery occurred.Not a word out of theBar Association.Did rita evans also steal some body’s money?

Leave a comment, join the discussion.