The Caribbean Court of Justice – A Cautionary Legal Tale
It is most unusual and judicially improper for a Court to publish its judgment in the public media before it has been delivered and communicated to the litigants and their legal representatives. This is what the Caribbean Court of Justice did in the Caribbean Court of Justice Civil Appeal Case No. BBCV2014/002 – Systems Sales Limited v. Arlette O. Browne-Oxley and Sonja Patsena Suttle – a procedure that has never occurred in the Supreme Court of Barbados since our independence.
The Judgment which on the face of it reads “The Judgment” of Justices Wit, Hayton and Anderson which was delivered by The Honourable Mr. Justice Hayton on the 25th day of November 2014 was never read nor delivered to the parties or their Attorneys-at-Law on the 25th November 2014. The Attorneys-at-Law for the Applicant received an electronic copy of the Judgment on the 26th November 2014 and the signed hard copy was received by the Applicant from the sub-Registry of the Court (the Barbados Supreme Court Registry) on the 4th December 2014. Strangely enough, a media release number 28-2014 dated the 25th November 2014 was issued by the Court to the media and published on that same day. It is to be noted that the “media release” the electronic copy and the signed hard copy all bear the date 25th November 2014 even though they are not identical documents. What has therefore resulted is that the Court has published three different official judgments on the same case.
Relevant Links:
Barbados Underground 
I have read this report, or should I call it a legal opinion, with great interest and I agree completely with the author. The conduct of the CCJ is demonstrably improper and egregious and I join the author in roundly condemning it.
I have to confess that when the idea of the CCJ was mooted, I have strong reservations which I kept to myself. My fears were:
• The effect not having the Privy Council might have on foreign investor confidence.
• The possibility/likelihood that, over time, the CCJ would merely become nothing more than a cover-up for the judicial cartel as a whole, a cartel which has since deteriorated to an alarming degree.
• The possibility/likelihood that appointments to the CCJ would become judicial rewards for chief justices and other judges, handed out, not for judicial excellence, but for political thank-you’s complicated by the fact that these rewards for taking public funds for doing nothing would not be local, but regional.
• While the appointment of Sir Michael de la Bastide certainly inspired confidence, the reflection of what might (and has) happened when he retired caused concern.
All my concerns have been realised.
I see that Jamaica’s opposition party has made it clear that if they prevail in the next general election, the country will refuse to sign up to the CCJ, following the lead of the present government – which means that Jamaica will never join. Dominica also is steadfast in its refusal to abandon the Privy Council.
After having read this excellent legal opinion and subsequently looked at some of the recent CCJ judgements, I agree with Dominica and Jamaica that the CCJ is as unworkable as Confederation was. Worse, some of the recent decisions demonstrate procedural and judicial ignorance and an alarming paucity of knowledge of law. But worst of all, there is a strong suggestion of corruption as it is one of the only conclusions to be drawn from decisions that would bring shame to a first year law student.
Coupled with all that are the scandals that have recently rocked the CCJ with the wife of Justice Wit ordering a chauffeur to sell complimentary tickets and then dismissing the man when he refused and the revelations by an outgoing registrar.
In the private sector, one does not pay out $10 million a year unless the investment will bring returns. However, Barbados is paying $10 million a year at a cost of untold millions of dollars lost in foreign investments that is going instead to Jamaica and Dominica. And for what? To support and encourage the unfounded hubris of the regional judiciary who, with very few exceptions, could never get near the benches of countries like Dominica, Jamaica, New Zealand, Australia simply because they, the judiciary, do not have a clue.
The effect on Barbados is that, with the advent of the CCJ, especially post Sir Michael de la Bastide, our local judiciary has been encouraged to continue its course of incompetence and sloth and until we get rid of the CCJ and return to the Privy Council that the far wiser Jamaica and Dominica have refused to abandon, Barbados has no justice system and therefore no foreign investments and Bajans of all walks of life will continue to suffer financially in a way no longer attributable to a fast-recovering (and in the case of the UK, recovered) global economy. Unlike T&T and Guyana, we have no natural resources to fall back on. We need foreign investment to survive.
The seriousness of the situation cannot be understated. We are now lumped in with places without a rule of law where civil corruption and criminality can be pursued with impunity. In other words, by espousing the CCJ and by not making every effort to sort out our own judiciary, we have placed ourselves in the international toilet bowl – and it won’t be long before someone pulls the chain.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Count your blessings lad…..at least there was A WRITTEN DECISION……are you aware of the number of decisions in Barbados that exist, where only oral decisions were given but never WRITTEN up for future references?… the excuses given inadequate staffing, or too busy. Should a respondent opt to pursue the matter further in a Court of Appeal are you aware of the trouble he \she would encounter with NO WRITTEN decision? If one tries taking up this matter further with the CJ…..don’t hold your breath… another case of “justice delayed is justice denied “in Barbados….And there are lots…..
LikeLiked by 1 person
For us to be having a discussion about reverting to the Privy Council is a disappointment of monumental proportion.
LikeLike
The effect on Barbados is that, with the advent of the CCJ, especially post Sir Michael de la Bastide, our local judiciary has been encouraged to continue its course of incompetence and sloth and until we get rid of the CCJ and return to the Privy Council that the far wiser Jamaica and Dominica have refused to abandon, Barbados has no justice system
……..we certainly making a meal of it…….
LikeLike
@ Amused
what the hell Boss….Welcome back – were you on sabbatical or wuh?
Bushie don’t see one shiite wrong with the CCJ’s actions in this case…..except of course that a few self-opinionated lawyers feel affronted.
This looks like a clear-cut decision that should have ended when the first lawyer looked at the damn file.
What exactly are you upset about? the decision? …or the fact that the decision was published before being presented to the lawyers?
Bushie has NO PROBLEM with either.
LikeLike
Bushie
I completely agree with you. Those niceties like having the lawyers sitting before the court while the decision is being delivered is not a big thing if you get justice in the end. The poor quality of some of its decisions should be of greater concern. The decision in the Winton Campbell case readily comes to mind. As a result of that judgment, Government has been able to decimate the public service and not pay the workers who were dismissed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sometimes when you step back and examine the collage of experiential imagery of our judiciary, you can only shake your head.
A careful read of the Submission by Systems Sales shed a light on the incompetencies of Madame J Kentish and compounds it with the old boy network of the mock court of the CCJ.
We designed the CCJ as an extension of Caricom and our collective belief that our judicial systems which were, in the respective member states, in the throes of inefficiency and incompetence, would, simply because of the mindset of wanting to replace ” things British/colonial with things Caribbean, would transform alchemistically to something that would surpass the Privy Council
Jamaica inasmuch as we would decry its political flammability and renown murder rate, would have done a serious introspection of what tampering with the judiciary won’t do to the country and, unlike others of the regional clowns caught up with the rhetoric of having our own, at a time of obvious immaturity and nepotism, opted NOT TO TAINT this final bastion and legal recourse
Good mechanics will tell a car owner that only the shock absorber on the front right wheel is busted and needs to be replaced but charlatans and the regional mentalities of statesmen that we are besieged by in seeking their own aggrandizement will say ” we going change all the shocks” and spend $10 million plus a year, money that they can’t afford, cause we want our own Privy Court
Like many I too have seen that the European Union has/had a begin point and would consequently accept that like the OECS, Caricom would also have such a nexus but we need to give serious pause to which mechanisms we will change and more importantly WHEN.
LikeLike
I agree with Amused and his point that our decision to leave the Privy Council might have an effect on the investment climate here.Foreign investors would want to have some surety that they are protected by proper legal procedures.The problems with the local judiciary do not engender confidence at this time.
LikeLike
Observing the Privy Council as final court is not a mid to long term option. A Privy Council Justice practically stated as much a few years ago.
Click to access 72.pdf
LikeLike
@ Gabriel
Look Boss, the position that you are taking has merit, however it is not enhanced by tagging it to the above case.
Bushie agrees that we should have remained with the Privy Council because our legal resources are clearly not competent to operate without supervision and overview from some some mature body. …in short, brass bowls cannot be expected to perform as fine silver…
HOWEVER, the challenge now is surely to take steps to up the ante and to root out the graft, incompetence and nepotism is it not?
Why the hell would foreign investors be attracted to a place where the legal experts were NOT competent to run their own affairs – except to come and piss on them?
steupsss…..
wuh surely the objective is to raise the legal standards and not go back to sitting on the steps of the old masters…. Unless you know that we are INCAPABLE of better with the kind of shiite we have as lawyers…..
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Caswell
…you COMPLETELY agree with Bushie?
You serious?
shiite man, this is a first.
Can we talk about BUP….? 🙂
LikeLike
@Bushie December 17, 2014 at 9:17 AM. We really have neither the time or, more importantly, the international credibility, to “fix” the CCJ. Too many litigants, both civil and criminal, have waited, in some cases, decades, for judicial redress – and the international for foreign investment world knows it. We are at crisis point in Barbados. The CCJ is a FAILED experiment. You can be sure that neither Jamaica or Dominica will join after this report. Therefore, instead of Barbados getting a taste of foreign investment headed towards the Caribbean, it will inevitably go to Jamaica and Dominica whose leaders, unlike the personal-empire-building David Simmons (Caswell’s good friend and mentor) realise that it is ESSENTIAL that there be a credible and functional justice system in place to attract foreign investors (which the Barbados courts and the CCJ are NOT) and kept well clear. So as Jamaicans and Dominicans are feasting on caviar and champagne (figuratively) and having the funds to pay their civil servants and other institutions out of money some of which may have come Barbados’ way had things been different, we will continue to drift further into the abyss of financial despair so that we cannot even afford a cutter and some rum, while paying out $10 million plus a year to perpetuate the hubris of a bunch of legal incompetents.
As for the opinion posted by BU and your earlier comment, the CCJ is SUPPOSED to act under the laws of Barbados and adhere to those laws. They are SUPPOSED to act in right of Barbados. The opinion points out clearly and unquestionably that the CCJ has not got a clue about the laws of Barbados that they are mandated to uphold. The niceties of protocol are a minor part of the opinion. The thrust of it is that these brass bowls have not a clue what they are doing.
BTW not on sabbatical, just very busy with the brass bowls in the Barbados justice system. But good to be back and especially to see you here.
@Piece of the Rock. Well said. It is clear you and a few others actually read the report and thought it through, while that wannabe legal incompetent Casewell has managed to demonstrate yet again why the country is blessed that he never qualified as an attorney – hell, given the idiots Simmons put on the Bench, we would certainly also have had to contend with Simmons’ favourite yes-man Casewell. My blood runs cold just thinking of the possibility of the Honourable Mr Justice Casewell Franklyn.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The “Investments coming to the Caribbean” may be shifted mainly to Cuba.
Lets hear what bamma has to say at 12pm et.
LikeLike
I recently read with great pleasure that Sir David Simmons had banned someone from the current enquiry into the Trivoli Gardens matter. The man had stated that Sir David was a “political hack”. He was totally accurate and candid!
LikeLike
Amused,
May you say what is technically wrong with the decision instead of engaging in ad hominems and waffle?
I am beginning to suspect that you know little about law but are a mere poseur!
LikeLike
@Buster Brown. I said that I agreed with the report/opinion which clearly sets out where the judgment is in error. It is not therefore for me to say what is “technically” right with the decision as my opinion is already stated; but for you to counter the report/opinion that I agree with and demonstrate where the judgement is correct and the report/opinion in error. I think it would be a public service if you were to favour us with your incandescent and suprior legal opinion and unmask those your superior legal intellect consider to be poseurs, including, but not limited to, myself. Knock yourself out.
LikeLike
So it suffices for you to say that you agree with the arguments of losing counsel that the decision which went against them was incorrect? They have not cited a single legal reference that contradicts anything the CCJ said but argue that the evidence disclosed otherwise. Since when are counsel for either party the finders of fact in a case? Their argument is sour grapes nothing less.
LikeLike
Vastly amusing and much ado about nothing – well except that the BU favourite sons, the Gollops, are affronted. Their case had virtually no merit.
Amused’s shock and horror, which was to be expected, is much spin little substance.
Amused been absent? Yeah right.
LikeLike
I note that Bustopher has pipped me to the post. Gee even Bush Tea saw through it.
LikeLike
The decision baffles me. It has nothing at all to do with an inexperience layman living in a chattel house. UWI Professor Stan Reid lived in one. Many of those houses are beach front house; nearly every house in Guyana is a chattel house. The plea that what he signed to do was not what he agreed to do, does not apply to a person who has full capacity. The Suttles would have to establish that they were under some disability which does not include living in a chattel house. Emmett & Farrand on Title para.3.008
Furthermore, the doctrine of frustration of contract as mentioned by the CCJ is ” RARELY APPLICABLE TO CONTRACTS FOR THE SALE OF LAND….” Emmett & Farrnd on Title para.. 3.003
While we are at it, the names of the Judges of the CCJ do not appear in our Official Gazette and I am not aware they have been admitted to practise law in Barbados. I see the names of the Court of Appeal Judges, the High Court Judges, and the Magistrates.
I must ask, then how are they practising law as Judges of the highest Court in Barbados when their names are not on the Rolls? Tell me!
LikeLike
Today, High Court judge William Chandler threw out the cases he brought against three individuals, stating they were not the ones to be sued.
http://www.nationnews.com/nationnews/news/60907/st-clair-thrown#sthash.olYEuRdq.dpuf
Can someone tell me why the lawyers did not know who they should sue ? Amused would find that amusing.
LikeLike
That is no great puzzle puzzled.
Judging from the resulting shiite system that we have endured as a result of law being practiced in Barbados by those whose names ARE on the rolls ….it seems that the CCJ has now decided to go with legal persons who are past the stage of ‘practicing’ and using those who actually PERFORM.
…guess those names are not on the PRACTICE rolls but the PERFORMANCE rolls…. 🙂
Lotta shiite…
EVERY judge’s decision can be expected to have a 50:50 supporting / opposing group. If the matter was so damn clearcut, then presumably it would not have even gone to the lower court far less the High court and CCJ… If Bushie was a CCJ judge and some bigup lawyer came with some shiite case to waste the bushman’s valuable whacking time …..whu, Bushie would probably diss the shiite lawyers too …QC or HC…. LOL
LikeLike
Isn’t this a matter the touted ADR could have resolved Hants?
LikeLike
Yes David but a more troubling issue is that the lawyers for the priest sued the wrong people and have to now sue the church.
LikeLike
Puzzled
When Barbados used the Privy Council as its final court, the names of the Law Lords were not on the roll of attorneys. Sour grapes!
Sent from my iPad
>
LikeLike
The ‘Puzzled’ question is a red herring. Puzzled babes, live with it.
LikeLike
As with any profession here in BIM……some knows their work but don’t get the big jobs …
Some are incompetent and get the big jobs anyway….. depends on who you know and how you cozy up…
Ha.
LikeLike
Hants December 17, 2014 at 8:36 PM #
That is so funny.
LikeLike