est. 2007

Barbados Underground

Bringing News and Opinions to the People

,

COVID 19 Action Plan Coming Soon – All for One, One for ALL

On the 11 April 2020 Prime Minister Mia Mottley addressed the nation to update on COVID 19. One of the decisions made was to establish a Jobs and Investment Council that includes former ministers of Finance Arthur and Sinckler. She also promised to address Barbadians soon on what an economic plan for the country will look like.

COVID 19 is a pandemic which continues to stymie ALL the economies of the world.  Sensible individuals have to admit that it will take a herculean effort by ALL well being Barbadians to push start the economy.

The past is the past.

We are here now.

We have to dust off our backsides and look the future in the eye with conviction.

Let us join hands and show we care about Barbados.

“What need in the country now …“- Mia Mottley

 

380 responses to “COVID 19 Action Plan Coming Soon – All for One, One for ALL”

  1. Tron Avatar
    Tron

    @ Silly Woman April 26, 2020 12:16 AM

    In 2018, the people voted for a one-party democracy. Those who do not sit in parliament are better off respecting the popular opinion represented in parliament than undermining the legislature.

    The criticism is also unfounded in factual terms. The judiciary has so far been far too slow. The next step must be to finally abolish the jury completely and replace it with single high judges.

  2. Hal Austin Avatar
    Hal Austin

    @ PLT

    There is only one person in a criminal trial who is likely to suffer a denial of freedom, depending on the outcome of the hearing, and that is the accused.
    Anything that interferes with the accused getting a fair hearing is a denial of justice. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove its case, not of the accused to condemn him/herself.
    By the way, it is interesting that our judicial system is now described as ‘independent’, because the chief justice has spoken, when on this very blog his appointment has been strongly criticised.
    By the way, is this the chief justice top lawyers have been plotting against, which forced the late Trevor ‘Job’ Clarke to attempt to organise a group to support him?
    The fact is, our judicial system (the entire criminal justice system) is not only flawed, it is dysfunctional. Explain why a senior prison officer, and head of his occupational association, is now on trial for discussing work-place matters with his members; discuss why a police officer can walk out of his house and kill his neighbour, the partner of his victim is barred from the committal hearing, yet senior officers could crowd the public seats in the court; explain why that officer has been on bail for over two years and little is discussed of the case. The duopoly rules.
    Explain the case of Charles Herbert and the so-called public interest principle that freed him; explain why a man stealing a loaf of bread can be sent to prison; explain how a man can be accused of kidnapping a woman, taking her to the ATM, and robbing her, yet he is not charged nor is she arrested for wasting police time, or making false allegations; explain why a man can be on remand for ten years; explain why a homeless man, in the middle of a curfew, can be arrested and charged for breaking the curfew.
    I can go on, but all these are not mistakes, or oversights, nor, for the first time, incompetence, even if that is part of it, they are symptoms sofa a system that is rotten to the core. The judicial system of a failed state.
    We can pretend we are world class and punch above our weight, or admit our key institutions are in urgent need of reform.

  3. Tron Avatar
    Tron

    In Brazil, the generals are taking power right now.

    It is far better to live in a popular one-party democracy than in an anti-people dictatorship. Barbados is without doubt the most democratic island in the entire Caribbean.

  4. john2 Avatar
    john2

    The laws would still have been changed if the government was 16 – 14. A stronger opposition would have made some noise but would have changed nothing. No use constantly crying over the spilt milk (30-0 ) . Grenada government did not have an opposition for about two terms. If criminal feel their rights have been trampled then they have higher courts to appeal to.
    Don’t do crime and you wont have anything to worry about!

  5. peterlawrencethompson Avatar
    peterlawrencethompson

    @Hal Austin April 26, 2020 7:37 AM
    “Anything that interferes with the accused getting a fair hearing is a denial of justice. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove its case, not of the accused to condemn him/herself.”
    ++++++++++++++++++
    I agree with you entirely. As I understand the changes to criminal procedure, the accused will not be forced to make a statement so there is no threat of self incrimination. It does mean that statements made will be under oath, which I do not consider to be an infringement of the rights of the accused.

    I concur with you that the judicial system here is dysfunctional. That is of a piece with a dysfunctional educational system, a dysfunctional political system, a dysfunctional economic system, and a dysfunctional civil service. This is not news, but the same assertions are true of the parallel systems in the USA, in China, in Russia, and in the vast majority of other countries around the globe.

    I have insufficient knowledge of all but one of the judicial cases that you mention. There is no “so-called public interest principle” which freed Mr. Herbert; the Crown dropped charges against him because the Police investigation exposed evidence which made a conviction impossible. The Police had this evidence within 24 hours of his arrest, but it took many months to drop the charges out of a reluctance to appear to be going easy on him because of his skin colour and social status. This angered Mr Herbert and his family greatly, but I agree that it would have been a mistake to release him and drop charges just 24 hours after the arrest. The dysfunction of the judicial system is that his co-accused have not yet had their day in court where the evidence that the Police investigation uncovered could be made public and so collapse all the inane conspiracy theories that surround the case.

  6. Miller Avatar
    Miller

    (Quote):
    I can go on, but all these are not mistakes, or oversights, nor, for the first time, incompetence, even if that is part of it, they are symptoms sofa a system that is rotten to the core. The judicial system of a failed state.
    We can pretend we are world class and punch above our weight, or admit our key institutions are in urgent need of reform. (Unquote).
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Touché à droite, right “Enuff!”

    If the constant breaching of Sec. 18 of the Constitution is not a clear example of whittling away of people’s democratic rights, then, what is?

    But the spirit of Abijah the black boy can be heard crying in the halls of justice for his mum just as that of Luke, the rich white kid is crying out to Lady Justice for her to remove the scales from her eyes and see the double sword of Bajan justice at work.

  7. Hal Austin Avatar
    Hal Austin

    @ PLT

    The case against Herbert was dropped because of a lack of evidence and not in the public interest. We discussed this on BU before. An accused person, under our common law, does not have to give evidence under oath. The same way the accused does not have to go in to the witness box.
    By so doing s/he can be cross-examined. Making a statement from the dock means that s/he cannot be cross-examined. It is then the duty of the trial judge to make this point to the jury. There is an infringement of the accused person’s rights if this is denied.

  8. Interloper Avatar
    Interloper

    Were some of the contributors hard done by the country?

  9. WURA-War-on-U Avatar
    WURA-War-on-U

    For the tinpot leaders believing they have some say kind on when flights to the Caribbean will resume, outside of Liat, read and weep, Bloomberg is saying Branson is trying to offload virgin atlantic.

    https://www.facebook.com/516777140/posts/2895915293834358/?substory_index=10

  10. Mariposa Avatar
    Mariposa

    Watch how the blp soldiers tried to discredit Andrew Pilgrim
    From day one since Govt has been handed the reigns of power
    Govt has taken upon itself to gingerly erode the Constitution
    Many eye watchers have been paying close attention a recent Article hear on BU has given cause and concern as to how govt is using the 30-0 win to honed in unlimited power by way of various legislation
    The price which barbadians would pay would be costly when all is said and done.
    Never would i have thought that barbados would be heading into a dictatorship
    Where is Jeff Cumberbatch at a time when your voice needs to be heard

  11. David Avatar
    David

    Here is the Trinidad link.

    https://barbadosunderground.net/2020/04/09/trinidad-slams-door-shut-on-trinis-stranded-in-barbados/

  12. WURA-War-on-U Avatar
    WURA-War-on-U

    “If the constant breaching of Sec. 18 of the Constitution is not a clear example of whittling away of people’s democratic rights, then, what is?

    “But the spirit of Abijah the black boy can be heard crying in the halls of justice for his mum just as that of Luke, the rich white kid is crying out to Lady Justice for her to remove the scales from her eyes and see the double sword of Bajan justice at work.”

    They can’t see how HAUNTED they all are, using a dead child and his mother to win an election, making sure that the mother, and not Maloney whom they said and we all know caused the boy’s death and severe injuries to his sister….is the one facing criminal charges, that is UNTIL NEXT ELECTION…when they will pretend to do something about it during their vote begging sessions, more lies ..they can’t see where this is going…but that alone is quite enuff evidence to make SURE…that this government IS NEVER REELECTED TO PARLIAMENT…..neither in this CENTURY NOR the next…let them die off in the wilderness.

    Pimping for and SELLING OUT TO the corrupt LIKE THEMSELVES has gotten them NOWHERE after decades of believing they had arrived through BEGGING VOTES from the people….

    …..Ross school and EVERYTHING ELSE IS GONE….dont even think they realized it until i brought to their attention last week….ALL GONE, they have to start fresh, let’s see if they still cling to corruption and the corrupt…now that there is very little left except for LOANS, LOANS, LOANS…

    The parasites, thieves and frauds are now the LOSERS…can’t wait to see them all as PAUPERS, just as they enjoy seeing their own people.

  13. WURA-War-on-U Avatar
    WURA-War-on-U

    Even uglier is anointing yaself with sweeping powers and then decide as the black face traitors always do, that they have captured slaves whom they treat as uneducated, know nothing yardfowls, only good for voting for their parasitic selves and pimping enuff to carry news for them….but not worth consulting with and giving any information to so they will know what to expect or have a voice to PROTEST….wannabe dictstorships.

    Wuh it’s a good thing they have no clue what REAL POWER IS……paper power, especially when you ARE NOT THE ONE who created it, dont go too far as they will learn very shortly.

  14. Mariposa Avatar
    Mariposa

    Never thought i would see the day that Barbados would be heading for dictatorship and the people civil rights being taken away
    Of all the people to be given such a directive is a woman Mia Motley
    A woman who grew up in an era where woman had to fight for their rights
    Now for her to stans boldfaced and allow the Constitution to be made a plaything is shameful exploitation

  15. WURA-War-on-U Avatar
    WURA-War-on-U

    I may be wrong, but is this not the same dude who was bigging up this present government some time back, ah wonder if they will take his lead. St. Lucia parliament is also foregoing 75% of their monthly salaries..

    …the wannabe dicktators love to copy the negatives to practice on their onw people….Miller…let’s see if they copy this positive for once in their useless, self-absorbed lives…

    https://antiguaobserver.com/regional-nevis-premier-takes-100-per-cent-salary-cut/?fbclid=IwAR1BkAHq-pXb7MidOjU7OzlgWW2ehaQvRj1-_KyAeCjMETP50MWwHnfVloI

    “Jamaica Gleaner) – Premier of Nevis, Mark Brantley, in an unprecedented show of solidarity with the people of Nevis impacted by loss of income owing to the economic fallout from the COVID-19 global pandemic, has announced that he will forgo his entire monthly salary for the foreseeable future.

    On April 22, the premier informed the public, and wider federation, that “I have since last month forgone my salary and benefits in full and shall continue to do so until we are past this crisis.” Across the region and in the international arena, many leaders have recently taken 30 to 75 per cent salary cuts as government revenues dwindle.”

  16. WURA-War-on-U Avatar
    WURA-War-on-U

    Wuhloss…..add this very important issue to the equation and wuhloss, no amount of sweeping powers can change the results if no vaccine is found, what a thing.

    It maybe too early to say this, but there may be soon nothing for the corrupt to be corrupt with…lol

    https://trib.al/swCzxES?fbclid=IwAR2rHFTX4liROqT4HJ9iBDWS6S5_l3t7xUZ3Pb7p0yDdjLx5Z7nWW1KTAog

    “Scientists fear the hunt for a coronavirus vaccine will fail and we will all have to live with the ‘constant threat’ of COVID-19.”

  17. Enuff Avatar
    Enuff

    Miller
    If you want to convince me, list the amendments then demonstrate how Section 18 of the Constitution is being breached. I am a big supporter of consultation and that’s the only issue I see here; though, broad consultation is not always necessary. As for Hal, I pay him little mind because it is clear he does no background work before writing as his intent is to always portray Bdos in a manner to fit his narrative–“failed state”. The abolition of unsworn statements is not novel. He was a journalist or reporter? I wonder what the Windrush debacle says about his country? Was it due to “mistakes, or oversights”? Was it “the first time, incompetence, even if that is part”?

  18. Enuff Avatar
    Enuff

    This is a long but interesting cut & paste. I couldn’t use the link.

    Colin Bobb-Semple, LLB (Hons), LLM, MA,
    Solicitor/Higher Courts’ Advocate – England and Wales (non-practising); Attorney-at-Law – Guyana, South America (non-practising); Solicitor & Barrister – Eastern Caribbean: St Christopher and Nevis (non-practising); Former Law Revision Consultant to the government of Guyana (2010-2012); Lecturer in Law, School of Law and Criminology, University of West London

    An Unsworn Dock Statement + A ‘Cut-Throat’ Defence = A Recipe for a Gross Miscarriage of Justice?

    INTRODUCTION

    In a number of Commonwealth jurisdictions, the law provides for a defendant in a criminal trial to make an unsworn statement from the dock. This is an old English Common Law right, which is still upheld in some states, even though it was abolished in England and Wales in 1982.

    This essay demonstrates the devastating exercise of this right by a co-defendant in the murder trial of R v George & Another in Reading Crown Court, England, in 1977, where both defendants were convicted of burglary and murder, and in which the author was the then practising solicitor instructed to represent George.

    In this essay, the author also endeavours to point out to the following CARICOM and other jurisdictions, including Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, and Jamaica, that the right of a defendant to make an unsworn dock statement is an anachronism which should be abolished, as the potential for ‘cut-throat’ defences, gross abuses and miscarriages of justice, is immense.

    THE LAW ON UNSWORN STATEMENTS IN VARIOUS CARICOM STATES

    The following are examples of the law providing the right of an accused to make an unsworn statement from the dock, applicable in the CARICOM states of Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, and Jamaica.

    Antigua and Barbuda: Section 6(g) of the Evidence Act, Cap. 155, provides –

    “Person charged and wife or husband a competent witness

    Nothing in this section shall affect … any right of the person charged to make a statement without being sworn.”

    Barbados: Section 22 of the Evidence Act, Cap 121, provides –

    “ Competence and Compellability of witness …

    Unsworn evidence in criminal proceedings
    22(1) In criminal proceedings, an accused may give unsworn evidence.
    (2) An accused who gives unsworn evidence may not also give sworn evidence unless there are special circumstances and the court gives leave.
    (3) In giving unsworn evidence, the accused may read from a statement in writing and may use notes.
    (4) After unsworn evidence has been given, the attorney-at-law may, with the leave of the court, direct the accused’s attention to matters as to which the accused has not given unsworn evidence or as to which the accused might wish to give further unsworn evidence.
    (5) An accused who has given unsworn evidence shall not be cross-examined.
    (6) Unsworn evidence given by an accused may not be used for or against any other accused.
    (7) Subsections (5) and (6) do not apply where the accused gives both sworn and unsworn evidence.
    (8) Without affecting any other application
    (a) of the Perjury Act, Cap. 142; and
    (b) of the offence of perverting the course of justice,
    section 3 of that Act and the common law respecting the fabrication of false evidence apply in relation to unsworn evidence as they apply in relation to sworn evidence.”

    Belize: Section 58(g) of the Evidence Act, Cap. 95, provides –

    “Competency and Privilege of Witnesses …
    nothing in this Act shall affect … any right of the person charged to make a statement without being sworn.”

    Dominica: There appears to be reliance on the old English common law right for a defendant to make an unsworn statement from the dock.

    Grenada: Section 119(5) of the Evidence Act, Cap 92, provides –

    “Competency as witnesses of parties to civil suit and their wives or husbands …

    Nothing in this section shall affect … any right of the person charged to make a statement without being sworn.”

    Guyana: Section 52(h) of The Evidence Act, Cap. 5.03, provides –

    “nothing in this Act … shall affect any right of the person charged … to make a statement without being sworn.”

    Jamaica: Section 9(h) of the Evidence Act provides –

    “Competency of Witnesses …

    Nothing in this Act shall affect … any right of the person charged to make a statement without being sworn.”

    In the British Overseas’ Territory of Montserrat, Section 6(g) of the Evidence Act, Cap. 2.08, provides –

    “Person charged and wife or husband a competent witness –

    Nothing in this section shall affect … any right of the person charged to make a statement without being sworn.”

    Notwithstanding this provision, however, in a most remarkable decision, the Hon. Justice Iain Morley QC in R v Dwayne Irish in the High Court of Montserrat on 8th November 2016, relied on the absence of reference to the unsworn statement in the provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code No 2, to rule that unsworn statements would “no longer be permitted in criminal trials in Montserrat”:-

    “[12] It follows in my judgment that the deliberate omission from CPC No 2 of the ability to make an unsworn statement means that an unsworn statement is no longer permissible.
    [13] Mr Brandt argued that there needs to be specific language in statute or in the CPC that an unsworn statement is no longer permitted, on the
    principle that it has long been allowed,
    should not be rendered impermissible lightly, and what is not expressly prohibited is permissible.
    I reject this submission. The deliberate omission of the clause clearly renders an unsworn statement henceforth impermissible.
    [14] This is in keeping with its abolition in most Common Law jurisdictions for the understandable reason it allows evidence which cannot be tested by cross-examination. Moreover, the unsworn statement emerged in Common Law prior to 1898 at a time when it was not permissible for a defendant to give evidence in his or her own defence, for fear swearing an oath, and then lying, would imperil his or her soul, leading to eternal damnation. Such times are long over, and so too the need for unsworn statements.

    [15] For reasons of the above analysis of CPC No 2, unsworn statements will no longer be permitted in criminal trials on Montserrat.” (The Hon. Justice Iain Morley QC, High Court Judge https://www.eccourts.org/regina-v-dwayne-irish/ )

    In Director of Public Prosecutions v Walker [1974] 1 WLR 1090, (Lord Wilberforce, Lord Diplock, Lord Cross, Lord Salmon and Sir Eric Sachs) on an appeal from the Court of Appeal of Jamaica, Lord Salmon, in delivering the judgment of the Board of the Privy Council, gave guidance on a judge’s direction to the jury regarding the value of an unsworn statement of an accused:-

    “The Court of Appeal has indicated that it would be in the public interest if this Board were to give some guidance on the “objective evidential value of an unsworn statement” by an accused, since it has for some time been the standard practice in Jamaica to keep the accused out of the witness box. Much depends on the particular circumstances of each case. … There are however cases in which the accused makes an unsworn statement in which he seeks to contradict or explain away evidence which has been given against him or inferences as to his intent or state of mind which would be justified by that evidence. In such cases (and their Lordships stress that they are speaking only of such cases) the judge should in plain and simple language make it clear to the jury that the accused was not obliged to go into the witness box but that he had a completely free choice either to do so or to make an unsworn statement or to say nothing. The judge could quite properly go on to say to the jury that they may perhaps be wondering why the accused had elected to make an unsworn statement; that it could not be because he had any conscientious objection to taking the oath since, if he had, he could affirm. Could it be that the accused was reluctant to put his evidence to the test of cross-examination? If so, why? He had nothing to fear from unfair questions because he would be fully protected from these by his own counsel and by the court. The jury should always be told that it is exclusively for them to make up their minds whether the unsworn statement has any value, and, if so, what weight should be attached to it; that is for them to decide whether the evidence for the prosecution has satisfied them of the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and that in considering their verdict they should give the accused’s unsworn statement only such weight as they may think it deserves.” (Lord Salmon, at p. 1095)

    This decision is also binding on those states for which the Privy Council is also the highest Court of Appeal, e.g. Antigua and Barbuda and Grenada.

    R v GEORGE: A miscarriage of justice?

    The case of R v Andrew Hipolite George (1979) 68 Cr App R 210; [1979] Crim LR 172; The Times, Oct 31, 1978, was one of a number of cases which caused some consternation in England. The trial was held at Reading Crown Court before Mr Justice Thesiger and a jury. George was convicted of burglary and murder. The appeal against his conviction was heard in the Court of Appeal before Lord Chief Justice Widgery, Lord Justice Bridge, and Mr Justice Wien.

    The brief facts of the case were that there was a burglary of a house in North London which involved the binding and gagging of an elderly woman, causing her death from a heart attack. Leroy Gilpin, (LG) aged 25 and Andrew George (AG) aged 19, were charged with burglary and murder. LG was the deceased’s former next door neighbour. LG pleaded guilty to burglary and not guilty to murder. LG’s palm print had been found at the deceased’s house, but there was no forensic evidence against AG. AG was Educationally Subnormal. He pleaded not guilty to burglary and murder.

    Near the end of the defence case, LG made an unsworn statement from the dock. He said that AG broke into the victim’s house – AG had put socks on his hands – AG opened the front door and let him (LG) in – AG tied the woman up – He (LG) cut the rope, tried to let the woman go, left AG in the house to release the woman – AG was the last to leave the house – AG later told LG that he had let the woman go – …

    The jurors were directed by Mr Justice Thesiger in words to the effect:

    “Make what you will of the statement as regards the Defendant LG who made the statement, but entirely disregard what you heard about the co-defendant AG – it is not regarded as evidence to weigh in the scales against AG …”

    Once the jury had heard the damaging evidence, however, it would have been practically impossible for them to engage in the mental gymnastics required to disregard the damning statement made by the older man, LG, which had incriminated the younger person, AG.

    It is submitted that this would all have been very confusing for a jury, as the statement had practically the same effect as sworn evidence. The 25-yr-old man, LG, had incriminated AG (an Educationally Subnormal 19-yr-old), and said that he was the ringleader.

    The damaging statement of LG had an enormous impact on everyone in the court. It was devastating for AG and his legal team. Of course, AG’s counsel were hampered and could not cross examine LG, as his statement was unsworn.

    During a weekend adjournment, immediately after the statement had been made, AG’s father went to visit LG and had a conversation with him. Following that meeting, AG’s counsel, Mr Daniel Hollis QC and Mr Samuel Knox- Hooke, made application to call evidence in rebuttal of the statement of LG. Mr Justice Thesiger refused the application, however, on the ground that evidence in rebuttal could not be admitted, as the unsworn statement from the dock by LG was not evidence.

    Both defendants were convicted of burglary and murder.

    It is submitted that in view of the obvious prejudice which had been caused to AG’s case, Mr Justice Thesiger should have severed the indictment and ordered a separate trial for AG. The Commentary in the Criminal Law Review Report on the case suggests:

    “the only alternative would be to discharge the jury from giving a verdict against G and to have him retried separately.” ([1979] Crim LR 173).
    Lord Chief Justice Widgery, in delivering the judgment of the Court of Appeal to refuse Andrew George leave to appeal, stated as follows:-

    “But one thing which can be said with certainty is that the problem of a statement from the dock so far as a co-accused is concerned is exactly the same as the problem which arises when a co-accused has made some statement not in Court which damages a co-accused.
    We think … that we should treat these two situations alike. In each case the handicap imposed upon the defendant is that he cannot cross-examine the so-called witness. The more one looks at these two situations the more obvious it becomes that they are on a par.” (Lord Widgery, p. 211)

    It is submitted that their Lordships erred in their decision in the Court of Appeal, when they ruled that the problem of a statement from the dock was “exactly the same” as the problem which arose when a co-accused had made some statement not in Court which damaged a co-accused. The Court decided to treat these two situations “alike” and said that they were “on a par.” Their Lordships may not have taken that view, however, had they been in court during the trial when LG made his dramatic and devastating statement which branded AG as the ringleader and cast the culpability firmly upon him. Their Lordships may well have agreed that it could not be said to be “on a par” with an out of court statement which was read in court.

    The case was well publicised – It was reported in The Times (16 Nov. 1977; 31 October 1978) and in the local press. It was discussed in Michael Cohen’s article “The Unsworn Statement From The Dock” [1981] Crim LR 224. The BBC’s ‘Rough Justice’ Team investigated the case, and Martin Young and Peter Hill wrote a book Rough Justice which was published in 1983 by BBC Ariel Books, ISBN 0563201 29 0. The authors discussed the case in the chapter ‘The Boy Who Protested Too Much’ (pp. 53-74).

    REFORMS IN ENGLAND and WALES

    In 1977 the government had convened the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure (Philips Commission, 1977-1981) which recommended the abolition of the Unsworn Statement in 1981.

    Sir Charles Fletcher-Cooke, QC, MP, a leading Queen’s Counsel and an outstanding Criminal Law practitioner, who had been briefed by the author in another murder case in 1977 which involved contested identification evidence, and in which five defendants had been acquitted (West Indian World Nov/Dec 1977), made a number of observations in 1981, during the debate in the House of Commons on the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure:

    “On the whole, the report is good. I am pleased that it recommends the abolition of the practice of making unsworn statements from the dock. That is a relic of the days when the prisoner was unable to go in the witness box and give evidence on his own behalf. However, it has become an abuse, by which the accused can utter all sorts of uncontroverted and incontrovertible slanders against not only those in authority, but his own co-defendants. He cannot be cross-examined on behalf of those co-defendants and he may get away with frightful liberties. I see no reason why such an absurd anomaly should persist for another day.”

    Mr Patrick Mayhew, then Minister of State, Home Office, observed:

    “I have great sympathy with those who call for the abolition of unsworn statements from the dock. I believe that they are widely abused.”
    (See the Criminal Procedure (Philips Report) HC Deb 20 November 1981 vol 13 cc 527-9).

    Lord Diplock, one of the eminent judges who was a member of the Board of the Privy Council in the case of R v Walker (1974) noted above, made it clear in the House of Lords debate on the Criminal Justice Bill on 2 July 1982, that he was firmly in favour of abolition of the right to make unsworn statements from the dock:

    “The abolition of this historical anachronism was, I believe, the least controversial of the proposals of the Criminal Law Revision Committee in 1972. Indeed, but for the fact that I understand that one Member of your Lordships’ Committee is to oppose it, I should have thought that it was devoid of any controversial content. I do not know a single judge who approves of it. It has nothing to do with the so-called right of silence. What it has to do with is the right to lie to the court with impunity.
    The Criminal Law Revision Committee said in 1972 that the practice very seldom occurred. During the 10 years that I was judging criminal cases—a period which, I fear, finished in 1961- I never remember it happening. But of recent years it has become a ploy in certain courts—by no means all of them, I am glad to say. What happens is that it enables a character destructive cross-examination of prosecution witnesses. It may be the victim in a case of rape. Often it may be a co-defendant. It is very frequently the police. After the suggestions have been made to witnesses and denied, the accused, instead of going into the witness box, where he would be faced by cross-examination as to the truth of the allegations and where he would put his character in issue, repeats his allegations from the safety of the dock, sometimes in a statement written out for him by counsel.

    This right, surviving from the Act of 1898, is not only anachronistic: it is confusing to the course of justice, as the kind of direction that has to be given to the jury illustrates, and it is gravely unjust to innocent witnesses who appear in court. It is not a moment too soon to abolish it.” (Lord Diplock, HL Deb 02 July 1982 vol 432 cc 464-539).

    Sir Charles Fletcher-Cooke, QC, MP, made further statements in the House of Commons, during the debates on the Criminal Justice Bill on 21 October 1982:-

    “If it were only a question of the balance between the police and the accused, I would perhaps not be supporting the Government quite as strongly as I am. However, it is much more than that. It is a question of the gross unfairness to co-defendants which, to my mind, clearly pushes down in favour of the abolition of this right. I have been engaged in many trials in which I have heard some accused person with a long record abuse his right to make a statement from the dock in order to attack a co-accused and try to offload the blame upon him, a person who may … have no record at all. It is grossly unfair on such a co-accused when that happens. Neither he nor his counsel can cross-examine and his co-defendant can get away with murder.

    … I know that the hon. Gentleman will say that it is the duty of the judge to warn the jury that such a statement is not evidence against a co-accused; and, of course, he is right about that. Such a statement is not evidence…it seems an enormous injustice to other persons, who must be presumed innocent until the jury declare them guilty. That is what we are discussing. It is not right that such persons should be subjected to and liable to that sort of attack when they cannot answer back. For that reason alone all those persons who are interested in the innocence of persons in the dock should be disposed to remove that anachronism.” (See Hansard New Clause V HC Deb 21 October 1982 vol 29 cc 584-601, … ABOLITION OF RIGHT OF ACCUSED TO MAKE UNSWORN STATEMENT)
    The 1982 Criminal Justice Act followed, and s. 72 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 abolished the unsworn statement.

    REFORMS IN CARICOM JURISDICTIONS

    The late Dana S. Seetahal, a former Senior Counsel, Law Lecturer at Hugh Wooding Law School, Council of Legal Education and Senator in Trinidad and Tobago, wrote:-

    “In many jurisdictions, the accused person … has … the right to make an unsworn statement … from the dock on which he cannot be cross-examined… The trend in the region is now to abolish this right, as has been done in England … There is a growing recognition by courts and the legislature that some accused persons may take advantage of the fact that they would not be cross-examined on an unsworn statement to use it to cast imputations on the police and other prosecution witnesses or speaking of their own good character. The most that the prosecution can hope for in such cases is to call specific rebuttal evidence to disprove a defendant’s assertion in the dock of good character …” (Seetahal, 2014, pp. 231-32).

    States and Dependent Territories including Anguilla, The Bahamas, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, St Christopher (St Kitts) and Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent & The Grenadines, Trinidad & Tobago and the Turks and Caicos Islands, have abolished the right of a defendant in a criminal trial to make an unsworn statement from the dock.

    Some of the leading lawyers in the Caribbean have called for reform in the law in those states where the right for an accused to make an unsworn statement from the dock is still retained. The former DPP of Dominica expressed his opinion in 2013:-

    In 2013, Mr Gene Pestaina, the then Director of Public Prosecutions in Dominica, was of the view that the laws should have been “changed drastically”. He said that when the three options were given to an accused person to remain in the prisoner’s dock and say nothing, or to make an unsworn statement, or to go and give evidence from the witness stand under oath, and they chose to make an unsworn statement; “a smart Alick accused” could always give a story for the first time, and it did not matter what the prosecutor and judge said to the jury about taking what they had heard “with a grain of salt”, the jury took what the accused person said as “the gospel truth”. (See https://www.dominicavibes.dm/news-85173/ )

    CONCLUSION and RECOMMENDATION

    It is hoped that states, including Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, and others, which still retain the old anachronistic common law right of the accused to make an unsworn statement from the dock, or, according to Lord Diplock “the right to lie to the court with impunity”, would heed the lessons to be learned from the case of Andrew Hipolite George. Andrew had a right to a fair trial, but his co-defendant deprived him of that right, when he exercised his right to make an unsworn statement incriminating Andrew. No defendant in the Commonwealth Caribbean or elsewhere should ever have to be placed in such an invidious position.

    It is recommended that any states which still retain the right of a defendant to make an unsworn dock statement, should take immediate steps to have that right abolished in the interests of fairness and justice.

  19. WURA-War-on-U Avatar
    WURA-War-on-U

    As the WORLD TURNS…

    “Sir Richard Branson is looking to sell Virgin Atlantic before the end of May after he failed to secure a government bailout with his £80 million private island as collateral.

    The billionaire’s pursuit of a £500million taxpayer intervention has effectively been shelved and the airline is concentrating on getting new backing from private investors.

    Around 50 possible backers are said to have inquired about the company – with suitors presented with options to inject debt, equity or convertible loans, which could potentially leave face of the brand Sir Richard with no residual stake.

    ‘All options’ were said to remain on the table after the investment bank hired by Virgin Atlantic, Houlihan Lokey, reportedly sounded out more than 100 possible financial institutions.”

  20. Tron Avatar
    Tron

    @EnuffApril 26, 2020 10:48 AM

    Thanks a lot! The government relies on facts, the opposition on vicious rumours.

    I wanted to add that we do not have to listen to anyone about such laws, because there are many lawyers in parliament. Parliament thus represents the legal profession. Full stop.

  21. WURA-War-on-U Avatar
    WURA-War-on-U

    And that right there is billionaire Branson with HUGE virgin record store in Times Sq and here and there…he’s about to cut his losses and head for the hills, can’t even use the island as collateral…

    .so imagine the little riffraff wannbe millionaires on the island who only got that fraud label from living off the back of the majority black population…imagine how quickly they will be turned into paupers….just like that…

  22. Miller Avatar
    Miller

    @ Enuff April 26, 2020 10:29 AM

    If you want to limit the discussion to the recent proposed amendments then so be it.

    What about keeping people (innocent until proven guilty) on remand aka locked up for years before receiving a “fair trial”.

    Do you consider 6 years (and in too many cases, over) to be a “reasonable time” before an accused person is tried for a murder case or even for other less serious charges, even if out on bail?

    You ought to read more intently what the CCJ has to say about your local judicial system.

    “Sec. 18
    (1) If any person is charged with a criminal offence, then, unless the charge is withdrawn, the case shall be afforded a fair hearing within a reasonable time by an independent impartial court established by law.

    (2) Every person who is charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed to be innocent until he is proved or has pleaded guilty…”

    What we would like to hear from you is if you agree with the banning on the sale of alcohol during the curfew period but still allows for the sale of Double Draw Lottery tickets.

    Do you- in your highest moral wisdom- consider gambling an essential service while the business involved in the supply of ‘spirits’ to drown the human misery of Covid is deemed ‘Non-essential’ despite its massive contribution to the Treasury to help defer the escalating increase in welfare payments?

    Now where was your ‘consultation and commonsense’ approach to such a disgustingly bias myopic decision?

  23. Hal Austin Avatar
    Hal Austin

    I find it rather interesting that I expressed a view on a socio-legal and criminological issue and a regular BU person has suggested that as a journalist and reporter (ignore that for the moment, since all reporters are journalists) I had no authority, or right even, to express any such view.
    Or, if I do, people should ignore me. They ignore me in my home anyway. But I wonder on what basis was this view made? Is this another example of the Bajan Condition?
    Plse give me a list of subjects on which I can comment.

  24. WURA-War-on-U Avatar
    WURA-War-on-U

    Miller….don’t mind the fowl, trying to tell us with a cut and paste aticle that SEASONED lawyers like Pilgrim etc, don’t know what they are talking about….fowl, fowl, fowl….

  25. Hal Austin Avatar
    Hal Austin

    Global coronavirus death toll could be 60% higher than reported
    The death toll from coronavirus may be almost 60 per cent higher than reported in official counts, according to an FT analysis of overall fatalities during the pandemic in 14 countries. Mortality statistics show 122,000 deaths in excess of normal levels across these locations, considerably higher than the 77,000 official Covid-19 deaths reported for the same places and time periods…(Quote)

  26. WURA-War-on-U Avatar
    WURA-War-on-U

    Very informative discussion going on FB. Let the fowl bring another long drawn out cut and paste articule to dispute this too…

    “Douglas Trotman His comments supports the view that the cure must not be worse than the disease… he mentions this…as did Donald Trump.
    The points on civil liberties have been observed in Barbados, where…there clearly being no law for a 24hr curfew, the police and the AG insists that one exists, when it was only mentioned in a press statement by the PM (Ag)… and has no force of Law.
    Furthermore… because our borders are open the best reason to leave home is a visit to the airport or seaport with intention to travel.
    We have a Public Health Energency… the AG refers to a State of Emergency…
    We have stay at home orders under penalty of imprisonment with advise of how to eash hands.
    Where is the advice on a regime of suppliments to help fight/stave off infection?
    Where are the recommendation on the healthiest foods to use during this lockdown?
    The nutritionists and immunologists among us… can they help at the national level in giving advice which may impact food choices?”

  27. Freedom Crier Avatar
    Freedom Crier

    Dr. Dan Erickson of Accelerated Health Care talks about the impact of the Coronavirus on Kern County.

    MUST WATCH. The Science, Data & Common Sense.

  28. Enuff Avatar
    Enuff

    Miller
    So what do you think the amendments are aiming to do, if not speed up trials? I read that judge only trials are coming too. Is this an attempt to breach the Constitution too? When de Mighty Liar in yuh corner be careful because she and logic is an emulsion.

  29. john2 Avatar
    john2

    The shoe is on the other foot now

    https://www.nationnews.com/nationnews/news/28724/blp-column-dlp-bungling

  30. Hal Austin Avatar
    Hal Austin

    Soldiers from the Barbados Defence Force also responded to the scene of the shooting….(Quote)

    So we have normalised para-military policing? Who called out the BDF? Or is so-called joint policing the norm? So Barbados has joined the Latin American school of law and order. Plse remind me, who called Barbados an ongoing democracy?

  31. Tron Avatar
    Tron

    In support of Enuff, may I point out that the CCJ has recently criticised the Barbados Supreme Court again (albeit in a very different matter) for overly lengthy proceedings.

    So it was high time for the government to speed up the process.

    In my view, we could go much further. More generally, from a socio-political point of view, we should ask ourselves why we should grant the native masses a multi-stage procedure with all these details at all. I personally prefer a fast-track procedure as in colonial times. In those glorious days, Barbados was much safer and less criminal than today.

  32. WURA-War-on-U Avatar
    WURA-War-on-U

    The cut and paste artist Fowl Enuff can’t win any argument with seasoned lawyers, WHO HAVE BEEN ASKING FOR SPEEDY court procedures for DECADES…they won’t now be against speedy procedures unless there is something else VERY WRONG fundamentally…

    ……it’s a commonsense thing, just like simple math, that eludes fowls…

  33. Miller Avatar
    Miller

    @ Enuff April 26, 2020 2:18 PM

    If Wura the Mighty Liar from Salem is in the miller’s corner, then, how would you describe the person in whose corner you obsequiously ‘lie’? The God Almighty of Lies, Queen Dolos?

    Well at least Wura, the wicked witch of Salem, never promised to bring justice for Abijah or strutted on an electioneering platform like a peacock carrying a bag of imaginary evidence and promises to lock up all the corrupt political foes who are now her very close bosom buddies.

    You just cannot -in the name of the Lord of Integrity on ascending the throne-blame a set of people for the demolition of the country’s economy but then turn around and appoint the same architects to help in its reconstruction as a result of the Covid-19 infestation.

    What’s next on your ‘lying’ agenda, Kingmaker Enuff?
    The backing of the appointment of Denis de Down low(e) to the Law Reform Committee without having to show his LEC?

    You ought to learn to cultivate a modicum of intellectual self-respect and stop performing the role of chief courtier to the regent of deceit and cease playing, on BU, the role of the prince of buffoonery in the court of hypocrisy.

    You have lost this fight. Why not return to the Hyatt hotel battleground to see if you can score any brownie points?

  34. David Avatar
    David

    Here we go again.

  35. WURA-War-on-U Avatar
    WURA-War-on-U

    We cannot even call this an anomaly…

    the same lawyers who have for decades…VERY PUBLICLY in the media, castigated judges who adjourn cases as a sport for years and years until everyone including themselves DIE OFF….and prosecutors who are never prepared for cases because the files are never ready or have MYSTERIOUSLY DISAPPEARED…are all of a sudden these same lawyers are AGAINST speedy trials…that should not even make sense to a fowl.

    yardfowl philosophy ….yo…

  36. Miller Avatar
    Miller

    @Tron April 26, 2020 4:11 PM

    Wasn’t the same (unfulfilled) promise made to the citizens to justify the appointment of the Justice Czars, both current and previous?

    How can you speed up (make more efficient) a system riddled with incompetence and controlled by a crop of politically-appointed grandees of legalese with a set of social axes to grind?

    You are speaking with a satirically forked tongue today, dear Tron.

    The justice system is axiomatic of the crowning example of your much maligned contaminated public service retarding the development of the Bajan society.

    Why not consult the ghost of your idol EWB who wisely pointed out this long known fact in his famous outburst of simple truth:
    ‘If [ordinary] Bajans want justice they must stay away from Coleridge Street (aka the judicial system in Barbados)’.

  37. NorthernObserver Avatar
    NorthernObserver

    @plt
    was the “evidence within 24 hours”….an admission of “knowledge of contraband” or “ownership of contraband”.

  38. NorthernObserver Avatar
    NorthernObserver

    @MTA
    what is an “ordinary” Bajan? Or is this like ‘middle class’.

  39. WURA-War-on-U Avatar
    WURA-War-on-U

    ….even worse the same lazy judges ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to give judgements in cases for one corrupt reason or another, MANY YEARS LATER still no judgement…….

    ….we just had CCJ not even 2 weeks ago publicly accusing Worrell of refusing to give a judgement in an ongoing case that should have been given 4 YEARS AGO..

    ….reserved judgements are supposed to be given within a 6 month period…and they just don’t do it because they believe themselves all powerful and untouchable……a well known corrupt judiciary…

    so we know there is much more to this and with the fowl crawling around ya done know lies and cover up abound…problem is, we are not the ones to convince…

  40. Tron Avatar
    Tron

    We all know that it is not certain laws but behaviour that characterises civilisation.

    Developing countries often have much more modern laws than developed countries. Nevertheless, the legal system in developing countries is widely dysfunctional.

    Why is this so? It is because of the DNA of the respective culture. In almost all developing countries there is a tacit social consensus that corruption should not be prosecuted. It would therefore be a waste of time in Barbados, too, to hope for something better with new integrity and transparency legislation.

    We all know that the numerous reform commissions are nothing but gossip circles in which too much rum is served. Decisions are rarely taken, and even less implemented or executed. It is just the national culture of Barbados to believe that problems can be solved by talking. Hell will freeze over sooner than Barbados will solve its problems.

    Singapore is an exception, because there a quasi-dictatorship has used the whip to drive out tribal ways of thinking.

  41. Tron Avatar
    Tron

    Last comment @ Miller April 26, 2020 4:57 PM

  42. Miller Avatar
    Miller

    @ NorthernObserver April 26, 2020 5:02 PM

    Instead of the “man on the omnibus to the Clapham Common” let’s settle for the man (or woman) on the ZR van to Silver Sands.

  43. Tron Avatar
    Tron

    We now have 24,000 new unemployed people, in addition to those registered before March 2020. I see a clear upward trend, with an estimated 40,000 new unemployed. In any case, we will exceed the 1992 record.

    The question is how the government will deal with the fact that we have 30,000 well-fed and highly paid civil servants with a prospect of very high pensions, facing a large army of unemployed people at the subsistence level. If the winter tourist season is cancelled, there will be a big bang.

    My advice, therefore, is to let the Corona flu be a normal illness like all the others. A dozen dead people who would have died soon anyway because of their morbid condition does not justify driving a whole country to the wall.

    I therefore very much welcome the government policy of lifting the lockdown as soon as possible and allowing tourists back into the country.

  44. Enuff Avatar
    Enuff

    “long drawn out cut and paste articule”

    Don’t blame the author of the article for your limited attention span and inability to read and synthesise a cogent, well-researched, evidence-based article. Once again you’ve been exposed as a parrot; and you believe (falsely) that by mentioning another blogger in your post it becomes credible. You’re talking a lotta RH. Don’t even know what was amended. Read more, think more and talk/cut&paste less. 🦜🦜

    Miller
    You may obfuscate with your verbosity. The point remains that you have not shown how an amendment to the Evidence Act to bring it inline with other Commonwealth jurisdictions, including the act’s original reference, has infringed on anyone’s Constitutional right or shows that the government is using the curfew to behave dictatorial. You may continue to beat your Hyatt horse. The horses I am familiar with are bigger and involve real, real investors and real, real money. Like I have said to you on numerous occassions direct your Hyatt queries to the relevant persons, not me.

  45. NorthernObserver Avatar
    NorthernObserver

    @MTA
    Thanks. I see it written regularly. I will expand that to Bajans who use public transport.

  46. WURA-War-on-U Avatar
    WURA-War-on-U

    “Don’t blame the author of the article for your limited attention span and inability to read and synthesise a cogent, well-researched, evidence-based article. ”

    Well, that was certainly a waste of ya typing skills…because I DID NOT EVEN READ THE ARTICLE, why would i waste my precious time, WHILE KNOWING thst the corrupt judiciary in Barbados needs a COMPLETE OVERHAUL……no amount of cutting and pasting articles….FROM OTHER JURISDICTIONS can fix the corruption that has completely destroyed the integrity of the court systemfor so many decades that it NO LONGER FUNCTIONS…..until that overhaul is done…nothing matters and nothing will work…no matter which jurisdiction it’s copied from…comprendre

  47. WURA-War-on-U Avatar
    WURA-War-on-U

    Proof beyond doubt of what we have been saying for years….NEVER be a yardfowl to any mediocre, small time, vote begging politician(s), it is an ugly, demeaning, degrading job.

  48. Hal Austin Avatar
    Hal Austin

    WordAds adds advertisements to the bottom of every post and page on your WordPress site. Over 50 internet advertisers — including Google AdSense & Adx, AppNexus, Amazon A9, AOL Marketplace, Yahoo, Criteo, and more — bid to display their clients’ ads in WordAds spots. With so many advertisers competing to display their ads on your site, we ensure that your sites get ads that generate the highest revenue. And since we do all the negotiating, all you need to do is publish on your site and collect your payouts. (Quote)

  49. Miller Avatar
    Miller

    @ Enuff April 26, 2020 8:29 PM

    How many times have such highfalutin claims been made about bringing legislation in line with other jurisdictions but the lethargy of a clogged-up class bias criminal justice system still prevails.

    Even the circuit court of the E.C. with it limited human resources does a more effective job at jurisprudence than the obese sloth Bajans have to put up with.

    When are you going to call for a similar ‘shake-up’ when it comes to civil matters where cases can linger as long as 10 years without a judgement many of which are easily appealed.

    It is not so much the lack of or the inadequacy in the existing legislation but one of professional competence and commitment.

    Do you really feel that the oversized and overpopulated legal fraternity in Bim want to see an efficient judicial system in operation?
    How then would the slackers justify their high fees and dismissive treatment of their clients?

    Have you ever heard the saying: ‘Too many cooks spoil the broth’?

    But there must be some ray of hope on the legal horizon with the presence of one of BU’s doyens now sitting on the ‘high ‘bench prepared to convert this theoretical know-how into practical excellence.

    It is good to see you have finally come to the stark realization that Hyatt is and was nothing more that a dead horse which only a jackass punter like you would back in the first place.

    Last week you were proposing a stimulus package of the local construction makeover variety.
    Now you are recommending big projects backed by your international friends of “real real investors” with “real real money”

    When are you going to bring some of those big name horses you are familiar with to run on the investment track in Bim now badly in need of some high class pedigree instead of the local same old one-trick ponies now lying idle in the Baloney & conmen stables?

    How about finding an immediate replacement for Ross-U-Bim?

  50. Hal Austin Avatar
    Hal Austin

    For over 800 years in our common law system an accused had the right to be tried by a jury of his/her peers. Anything that impedes that right, or weakens the case of the accused, is a deprivation of that right.
    But even this system has flaws: an all-white jury trying a black lad for an alleged mugging is clearly not a jury of his peers. And, even worse, a judge-only court is a betrayal of everything we have fought for over our history.
    We cannot allow book keepers and men in pinstripe suits to time cases or put a maximum cost on them. It is not a binary thing, a yes or no, right or wrong, either or. It is simply WRONG.
    Any changes must be agreed by the society, not by a few top people; it is better that 100 guilty men go free than a single innocent woman or man is convicted. That is the principle of a liberal democracy.
    Some Barbadians may think it is better to hang 100 innocent men than to let a single guilty one go free. A robe and a collar do not make an incompetent competent or someone who has learned by rote a critical thinker. Nor does a diploma make a dumbo clever.
    That is the Barbadian Condition.

Older Comments
1 … 5 6 7 8
Newer Comments

The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.

Trending

Discover more from Barbados Underground

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

Continue reading