Submitted by FFed Up
There is a famous saying emanating from the late Australian-born, British judge, Lord Atkin (1867-1944) that: “Justice is not a cloistered virtue: she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful comments of ordinary men”, like Tom, Dick, Harry and myself.
A case heard recently in the Supreme Court involved two police officers and an attorney, Lani Daisley. The latter was awarded $373,904. I’m not interested in the facts of the incident, per se, as those were dealt with by the judge. My concern is with the peculiar behaviour of the state in the case. For those who are really following, alarm bells should have sounded.
It is now a matter of public record that for a case/accusation so alarming, so vexatious, so grievous, so incendiary, so critical of the Barbados Police Service and by extension the state, the office of the Attorney General, and by extension the Government, had no legal representative at the hearing. Let me repeat that. An accusation of a most heinous nature was made against the state, but the state did not represent/defend itself.
But it gets even more curious. Having not defended itself – whether it had a viable defence or not – I am now reading today that the Attorney General’s office is appealing the quantum of damages. I have been checking other jurisdictions to see if the populace of other places is subjected to this type of cloistered virtue and it seems that Barbadians, often accused of frequently being in a state of somnolence, mainly entertain this type of assault on their intelligence. If the Government did not see it necessary to defend itself, why seek to reduce the quantum of damages – which is subject to increase at appeal by the way.
What the hell is going on behind closed doors that is not suffering scrutiny and more respectful comments from ordinary Barbadians?
Mind you, this Government that is now seeking to reduce the quantum of damages awarded Daisley, is the same Government that awarded an estimated seven-figure sum to about 13 police officers, collectively, who actually LOST a case brought against the state related to promotions. The separation of powers did not simply go through the window; it was kicked over a cliff.
But wonders never cease. Ms. Daisley has an appeal pending before the Court of Appeal. Would anyone be alarmed if her appeal, and that of the Attorney General’s office against the quantum of her damages, be heard together before the same panel?
The Barbados Bar Association is within its rights to speak out for its members and for justice in general. Hopefully, it will apply equal fervour to addressing the rule of law in this country and what many view as its precarious perch at the edge of Hackleton’s Cliff.
The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.