Recently in the case brought before the Appeals Court involving the maligned Vonda Pile to consider recommendations for her future, the matter had to be adjourned. Pile was found guilty in 2019, of misappropriating client funds in the amount of $191 416.39 from former client Anstey King. In an interesting twist Pile served three years at Dodds and resumed practicing law after being released.
Why was the matter adjourned?
It appears Pile was served with email notices and when she failed to appear in court before Chief Justice Leslie Haynes and Justices of Appeal Francis Belle and Margaret Reifer there was uncertainty whether Pile had received the notices. In response to interventions from legal representatives present for the matter to proceed in Pile’s absence, Chief Justice Haynes felt compel to issue a noble statement:-
This court is an open court. We cannot just put down the law when it suits us and pick it back up at any other time. It is my view that there is no evidence of service of the notice on Ms Pile. It is a matter of great disappointment to me because, as indicated by the Solicitor General, this matter has been going on for far too long…
Chief Justice Leslie Haynes
We all came this morning to deal with it but, regrettably, if we deal with the matter, there is a very strong argument that the principles of natural justice would be breached. In the circumstances, we have no option but to adjourn the matter in order to properly serve Ms Vonda Pile with notice of the date of hearing”
Although reasonable people may agree with Chief Justice Haynes that everyone is deserving of the principles of natural justice, a couple observations warrant consideration. Given the importance and high interest in the Pile matter, why didn’t the Registrar and or relevant parties instruct Pile to be served with notice by a Marshall? Surely it does not take a rocket brain to anticipate the process maybe frustrated by Pile and others? Jesus take the wheel!
Disciplinary Committee a no show
Also for those who follow court and related matters – there is a long running case where the Disciplinary Committee’s failure to defend the matter gave the judge scope to rule using discretion. The judge dismissed the decision to call the attorney representing the Disciplinary Commitee and ordered it to dismiss the complaint without a hearing. As a result of the ruling the claimant cannot now appeal because the judge had earlier ruled against his application to be a third party in the proceedings filed by the attorney for judicial review. Whose interest did justice serve in the matter. Can anyone guess the name of the defendant in the matter referenced?
David vs Goliath
The difference between the two cases – Pile is less prominent than the other.
The blogmaster has been intentionally vague to avoid prejudicing the matter. However it is fair to say that these kinds of matters depending on the prominence of the defendant can be manipulated to pervert justice in Barbados. There is no way a citizen should have to fight for justice against an attorney for over a decade. Barbados Underground will continue to report on these matters.
“Where there is no justice, the pillars of our society will eventually crumble.”
The blogmaster invites you to join and add value to the discussion.