369 responses to “LAWYERS in the NEWS”

1. 

   David

   June 19, 2025 at 4:28 am

   
   

   All of the presidents of the BAR read from the same page. If they were invested I the solution wouldn’t they think to hold some kind of protest, withhold their services for a day maybe to start the ball rolling?

   Act swiftly

   against convicted lawyers

   PRESIDENT OF THE Barbados Bar Association, Kaye Williams, wants an overhaul of the disciplinary process to deal swiftly with convicted attorneys.

   “A complaint should never be delayed for years. Where an attorney has been convicted of a criminal offence, there must be provisions in place for either automatic or very swift sanctions,” she said in a statement yesterday.

   Her observation came two days after attorney Vonda Pile was ordered disbarred by the Court of Appeal which accepted the recommendation of the Disciplinary Committee of the Barbados Bar Association to remove her name from the list of attorneys able to practise law.

   Williams explained that the disciplinary body for attorneys was funded by Government and it recently cited the lack of resources for its delay in processing complaints against attorneys.

   “The disciplinary arm of the Bar is completely independent of the Bar Association, as it should be, but currently it does not serve justice. It does not serve public interest. It must change. In order to operate independently of its respective associations, the disciplinary bodies for medical, dental and legal professions are all funded separately by Government.

   “Any process to sanction an attorney must strictly adhere to the principles of natural justice. Due process is essential, but when the system becomes inordinately lengthy or appears opaque due to lack of funding, it creates a dangerous perception that the commission of serious wrongdoing, even criminal conduct, can occur without consequence,” the president said.

   The current structure, stated Williams, is mired in complexity and delay.

   “Only last week, meetings were held as Government is seeking to establish an expanded regulatory body for lawyers. If there are no

   Legal profession ‘must be held to highest standards’

   resources, this will lead to an untenable situation of even greater frustration and backlog. Complaints will be even further delayed,” she said.

   The time for reform is long overdue and for years the BBA had urged the relevant authorities to prioritise amendments to the Disciplinary Committee as a matter of public interest and professional accountability, Williams said.

   “The legal profession must be held to the highest standards and the disciplinary process must reflect that principle – not only in theory, but in practice. The public deserves a process that is transparent, fair, and timely,” she said.

   Disbarred attorney Pile has more than 30 years at the Bar and Chief Justice Leslie Haynes warned her that if she should “hold yourself up as a junior attorney, that is a criminal offence”. He handed down the decision in the matter of the Legal Profession Act Cap 370A of the Laws of Barbados; the matter of the complaint of Anstey King against Vonda Minerva Pile, and in the matter of Vonda Minerva Pile, attorney.

   In June 2019, Pile was sentenced to just under three years in jail after she was found guilty, by majority verdict, of stealing US$96 008 between April 29, 2009 and October 26, 2010, from Bajan/New Yorker businessman King and not guilty of money laundering.

   She resumed practising upon her release from prison in January 2023.

   Chief Justice Haynes, who heard the matter along with Justices of Appeal Francis Belle and Margaret Reifer, immediately blocked Pile from touching any of the funds in her clients’ accounts and ordered the Registrar to summon her and the secretary of the Bar Association, to a meeting, within seven days, to make arrangements for the production of all the civil, criminal and probate matters in which Pile is involved.

   King’s Counsel Michael Carrington – who represented Pile along with Samuel Legay – had petitioned the Court of Appeal to give her a reprimand reasoning that “the mere fact that Ms Pile has been able to return to her practice would suggest the public has not lost trust in the profession” or her.

   (AC)

   Source: Nation

2. 

   David

   June 19, 2025 at 4:46 am

   
   

   Please assist Amit @http://www.barbadoscrimeblog.com/ with his poll.

   Hi David,

   As I expand my work on crime and homicides in Barbados, I have decided today to launch an informal anonymous poll, seeking to ask one important question:

   How safe do you feel living in Barbados today?

   Of-course there are limitations to basic polls such as these, nonetheless, I plan on running it every June and December, starting this month as a basic barometer on how people living in Barbados feel regarding their safety over time.

   I’d be grateful if you could share the link with the BU family. I am looking for respondents who have been in Barbados for the last 12 months or more.

   Link: https://forms.gle/3UMdm5VbV7n6V5vy9

   I will close it at the end of June.

   https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfJzWBDsHWtfkBayA2ROZUCTWfhwh4O_AYRXfB1sNnp7wH2Ig/viewform?pli=1

3. 

   David

   July 18, 2025 at 4:43 am

   
   

   Strange!

   Bail should not be only for rich

   A prominent criminal lawyer has defended his decision to recuse himself from representing three people charged with harbouring a fugitive killer and instead stand surety for them of $120 000.

   Senior Counsel Andrew Pilgrim appeared in the Holetown Magistrates’ Court on Wednesday initially representing Veronica Caroline Bascom, 61, of Seaview, St James; Afiyah Akilah Asher Mounter, 29, of the same address, and Javairne Jason Thompson, 41, of Nicholls Road, Seaview.

   Bascom was charged with assisting an offender, her son Kishon Anderson Lemar Thomas, who was on the run between May 2 and July 12, after escaping custody at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital while seeking treatment on May 2. She was not required to plead.

   Mounter, Thomas’ partner, and Thomas’ brother Thompson faced a similar charge, as well as assaulting and resisting a police officer. They pleaded not guilty to the latter.

   However, bail of $40 000 each was beyond their ability and this is when Pilgrim stepped in.

   Pilgrim told the Weekend Nation it was not the first time he took such action.

   “I’ve done it, probably five or six times, where I felt that the people were particularly vulnerable. So, one of these accused yesterday [Wednesday] had a threeyear-old and a seven-year-old. “The mother is 61 years old, suffers with thyroid problems and hypertension and is on medication. I thought the reason they’re not going to sleep at their homes tonight with their loved ones – people that need their care, including a 101-year-old grandmother – is the fact that they don’t have rich friends like you and me and I didn’t think that was satisfactory.”

   Pilgrim said after bail was granted, Magistrate Wayne Clarke said he would not be accepting possessions, and according to the attorney, the accused were not “landed gentry”, did not have family or friends who could help and it would have been impossible for them to get someone to sign at short notice.

   “I have done it in cases before, in circumstances that I thought the people were vulnerable or would have had a very difficult situation. But we take bail far too seriously in Barbados because we feel that it is a punishment,” he explained.

   “The issue is whether the person is going to come to court. The issue is not whether they’re guilty or innocent, as you will see from the comments that have probably already started to arise, the comments about whether they committed a crime, which, of course, is not relevant, because we all know that people are innocent until proven guilty.”

   The three are scheduled to return to court today. Pilgrim said once “they bring an appropriate surety” to replace him, he would step aside. If they so desired, he could then resume as their attorney.

   He recalled that quite early in his career, he also did the same for a woman who was around 70 years old.

   Pilgrim said he was unconcerned about the accused not reappearing, noting that in the past 30 years, “maybe ten people have absconded of millions of people who’ve been before the court”.

   “Bajans don’t run; Bajans face the day and get locked up.”

   Convenor of the Criminal Law Committee of the Barbados Bar Association, attorney Martie Garnes, said while it was “not the norm” for an attorney to sign bail for a client, it could occur in exceptional circumstances.

   “As you have heard from Senior Counsel Pilgrim, it is clear that he was trying to avert an injustice in the courtroom simply because of a person’s impecuniosity and the fact that they cannot afford the amount that was offered in respect of bail. That person should still be given the opportunity to turn up to court as is required according to the Bail Act,” he said.

   Pilgrim said he firmly believed that once a person was granted bail, they should be able to go home.

   “Bail shouldn’t be the exclusive right of rich people. It should be something that’s available to everybody.

   “Whatever offence a person is charged with, if a court in its wisdom decides that a person is entitled to go home on bail, I don’t feel like their wealth or access to property should be the determining factor,” he added. (SAT)

   Source: Nation

4. 

   Hants

   July 18, 2025 at 10:43 am

   
   

   Thieves.

   https://toronto.citynews.ca/2025/07/18/toronto-lawyer-charged-fraud/

5. 

   Bush Tea

   July 18, 2025 at 11:18 am

   
   

   Steupsss!!

   Pilgrim is just grandstanding as usual.
   Lotta shiite!

   In MANY cases, bail is ‘granted’ with the SPECIFIC understanding that the accused’s donkeys should spend some time up Dodds.
   Even so-called ‘rich’ people can be ‘granted bail’ in a way that suggest that the JUDGE considers that justice is best served with some time in JAIL… like a $2 million bond… or $15 million if needed.

   If the JUDGE intended for the accused to go home, then bail would have been set at $1000 – or even $200.

   These criminal lawyers who make a living BECAUSE of the existence (indeed PREVALENCE) of criminal activities in the country – OUGHT to be careful how they INTERJECT their warped morals on the already shitty justice system that we have to tolerate.

   Bushie is not surprised at the sources of support for Pilgrim…

   What a place!!

6. 

   David

   July 18, 2025 at 11:20 am

   
   

   @Bush Tea

   Pilly probably feeling offended that Michael stealing his thunder.

7. 

   Bush Tea

   July 18, 2025 at 1:58 pm

   
   

   Exactly Boss!!
   Just like the drug lords are wrestling over the newly created marijuana market, the legal gangsters also feel obliged to carve out their own quota of the criminal business.

   What a place!
   Every shiite is topsy turvy…

8. 

   David

   July 19, 2025 at 10:37 am

   
   

   Two find new sureties

   Stories by Sandra Downes

   Senior Counsel Andrew Pilgrim is now surety for just one of the three accused charged with harbouring escaped killer Kishon Anderson Lemar Thomas. The other two have found acceptable sureties to sign their $40 000 bail.

   On Wednesday while Thomas, 26, appeared in the Criminal Court No.1 of the District “A” Magistrates’ Court on five charges, including escaping custody, his mother, brother and another woman went before the Holetown Magistrates’ Court charged with harbouring him, as an offender.

   Veronica Caroline Bascom, 61, Thomas’ mother, is accused of assisting an offender between May 2 and July 12, while his brother Javairne Jason Thompson, 41, is charged with assisting his brother, and assaulting and resisting a police officer in the execution of his duties.

   Thompson was not asked to plead to the first indictable charge, but pleaded not guilty to the other two.

   Afiyah Akilah Asher Mounter denied assaulting and resisting a police officer, but was not required to plead to assisting an offender between May 2 and July 12.

   At that time Pilgrim – who along with attorney Sian Lange represented the three – recused himself from the matter and stood as short-term surety for the accused – all of Seaview, St James – after they had none.

   They were each granted $40 000 bail with the condition that they report to a police station once a week. Their matters were adjourned until yesterday when new sureties were expected.

   While Bascom and Thompson produced their sureties before Magistrate Wayne Clarke, Mounter was unable to do so but expected to have one available by Monday. As a result, Pilgrim continued as her surety after applying to the court for an extension until Monday.

   Back-up plan in place

   The senior attorney took an oath from the witness stand to that effect, adding that should there be any issues with the proposed surety, a back-up plan was in place where some benefactors had reached out to say they would collectively place funds into an account for that purpose.

   Stating that he would prefer a surety “to be someone naturally connected to the accused”, Pilgrim said he would undertake to “put things in place” by Monday.

   Asked whether he had any objections to the lawyer continuing as a surety until then, prosecutor Acting Inspector Wendell Greenidge said bail was “within the bosom of the court”.

   He added he would have an issue if Mounter were to leave the court without a surety, or put the court in a position it would be left without any leverage should she not comply with the bail conditions or not show up.

   While Mounter will be returning to court on Monday, her co-accused were given a November 11 adjournment date.

   Lange continues to represent the accused.

   Thomas, who was convicted of murder days before he escaped from the Queen Elizabeth Hospital on May 2, was recaptured last Saturday.

   He appeared in District “A” Magistrates’ Court No. 1 before Chief Magistrate Ian Weekes and was remanded to prison until July 29. He was charged with assaulting and resisting a police officer on July 12, which were transferred to the Holetown Magistrates’ Court.

   The escaping charge and those of resisting and assaulting another police officer on April 30 were adjourned until August 13 in the Bridgetown Traffic Court.

   Source: Nation

9. 

   David

   July 19, 2025 at 10:38 am

   
   

   WRONG MOVE!

   Pilgrim abandoned primary duty, says retired judge

   By Maria Bradshaw

   mariabradshaw@nationnews.com

   A former Appeal Court judge is not impressed with Senior Counsel Andrew Pilgrim taking off his legal robe to stand bail for three of his clients who were charged with harbouring a convicted murderer.

   Retired Justice of Appeal Christopher Blackman told the Saturday Sun that Pilgrim’s actions were “inappropriate and wrong”.

   “My view is, as an officer of the court and a senior lawyer, there is no place for him to act in this particular way with people charged with the offence of harbouring, notwithstanding the presumption of innocence,” he said.

   It came to light on Wednesday that Pilgrim had signed the $40 000 individual bail of the three charged with aiding escaped killer Kishon Anderson Lemar Thomas, who fled from the Queen Elizabeth Hospital and was on the run for ten weeks before he was recaptured last Saturday.

   While Thomas appeared in the District “A” Magistrates’ Court that day on escaping and other charges and was remanded to prison, his mother Veronica Caroline Bascom, 61; brother Javairne Jason Thompson, 41; and Afiyah Akilah Asher Mounter, 29, appeared in the Holetown Magistrates’ Court charged with assisting offender Thomas between May 2 and July 12. They were unable to find suitable sureties and Pilgrim took the rare step of recusing himself as their counsel and signing for them until yesterday.

   Pointing out that he contacted Pilgrim and informed him that he would make a public statement on the matter, Blackman, who was also chairman of the Employment Rights Tribunal and the Constitutional Reform Commission, said: “I think that since lawyers are officers of the court, their primary duty is as officers of the court.

   “You don’t compromise your position as an officer of the court by giving aid to people who allegedly behaved in a manner perverting the course of justice, aiding and abetting an escaped prisoner – not somebody on remand, not somebody awaiting trial – but a convicted person on the run for ten weeks.

   “The fact that Pilgrim admits it was not the first time he took similar action, ‘probably five or six times where I felt that the people were particularly vulnerable’, does not make it right,” Blackman added.

   The former judge explained that several legal texts assert that Pilgrim “as an officer of the court has a primary duty to the legal system and the administration of justice, which duty transcends the attorney-client relationship. Moreover, Mr Pilgrim’s stance that he is prepared to resume his role as their attorney, once replacement sureties are found, is unacceptable as he has compromised his duty as an officer of the court”.

   Blackman said he noted with regret that Pilgrim’s actions seemed acceptable to the convenor of the Criminal Law Committee of the Barbados Bar Association, Martie Garnes, who was quoted as saying he would do the same.

   “There are processes for appealing bail and these should be followed. Persons before the court should be aware that there are consequences for their actions and if incarceration is that consequence, then so be it.

   “Mr Pilgrim may well need to consider his position as a senior counsel of Barbados having regard to the entirety of his involvement in this matter,” the retired justice said.

   Source: Nation

10. 

    Hants

    July 19, 2025 at 11:50 am

    
    

    ” . a three year-old and a seven-year-old. “The mother is 61 years old, suffers with thyroid problems and hypertension and is on medication.
    a 101-year-old grandmother”

11. 

    Artax

    July 19, 2025 at 1:58 pm

    
    

    “So, one of these accused yesterday [Wednesday] had a three-year-old and a seven-year-old. “The mother is 61 years old, suffers with thyroid problems and hypertension and is on medication……”
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Reminds me of guys who, after being arrested, charged and their cases adjudicated in Court after committing serious crimes, engage in ‘emotional manipulation’ by telling the Magistrate or Judge their girlfriend is pregnant or they have infant children……

    …… something they should’ve considered before engaging in criminal activity.

    Here we have a 61 year old lady who, despite being AWARE of her medical condition and the CONSEQUENCES of harbouring an escaped convict, still CHOSE to ASSIST the offender.

    Some people would argue Thomas is her son, and assisting him is what any mother would do.

12. 

    David

    July 27, 2025 at 6:42 am

    
    

    In support of Pilgrim

    Several years ago, I watched a movie in which an older couple reconciled after being separated due to the husband’s repeated infidelities. The daughter, who could not forgive her father for his misdeeds, asked her mother why she took him back. The mother replied: “Although he was unfaithful, that is not all he was.”

    I am not suggesting that anyone should remain with an unfaithful spouse, or attempting to excuse cheating. Infidelity is often more nuanced than we care to admit, though we apparently love to sing songs about it ( Me and Mrs Jones) but condemn it when it hits home (pun intended). I shared this story because the words of the mother highlight the truth of human bias – we struggle to see someone beyond the bad thing they have done, or that we think they have done. This stems from our tendency towards polarity thinking, that is, seeing things as all good or all bad. But life is rarely that clear cut and most situations are neither black nor white, but rather different shades of gray.

    This may offend some who hold strong religious views; I used to struggle with this too. Too stringent a belief of absolute right and absolute wrong may result in a lack of empathy and compassion, and improper or unfair treatment in nuanced circumstances.

    Does a woman who kills her long-time abuser in self-defence deserve the same fate as someone who engages in premeditated unprovoked killing, since both have taken a life? Is it so black or white?

    Let me be clear, I am not speaking of someone who displays bad character and a lack of integrity in several areas. I am referring to people who are generally good but may display certain proclivities that can be detrimental. Like the hardworking successful man who provides for his family but drinks too much. Is he only an alcoholic? Or is he also a provider and hard worker? One doesn’t diminish the other, or excuse the other. They are both true at the same time.

    In certain circumstances, we conveniently separate the bad someone does, and even overlook it. Bill Clinton remains a respected former President of the United States even after the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Martha Stewart maintained her success and fame despite her imprisonment. Vybz Kartel has sold out shows despite being convicted of murder. A local former Democratic Labour Party politician speaks on political platforms despite his former conviction. The only person in these scenarios who continued to be treated as the bad thing she did is Monica Lewinsky. What makes us decide some people deserve our compassion and others don’t?

    Status? Fame? The nature of the accusation?

    Debate raged last week on the appropriateness of Senior Counsel, Andrew Pilgrim, recusing himself and standing as surety for the people charged with harbouring escaped convict Kishon Lamar Anderson.

    Pilgrim explained his decision was influenced by the fact that they had an ailing elderly relative and two young dependents at home, one accused suffered health issues together with the unfairness of people being imprisoned simply because they cannot afford bail. He saw the accused as more than the bad thing they are accused of doing.

    I never act as surety for anyone, not even for a student loan. While I would not do what Pilgrim did, I admire him for it. He was able to see his former clients as more than their alleged misdeeds. He’s not the only attorney who has assisted clients.

    Several cover the legal expenses for impecunious clients. Some provide money for groceries, utilities or to seek medical attention. These actions can also be seen as a conflict of interest, blurring the lines between attorney/client. Should we ban this too? If we ban attorneys from assisting clients, what is the benchmark? Why not let the justice system run its course. If found guilty, the accused will eventually be sentenced. Pilgrim hasn’t vouched for their innocence, only that he will ensure they attend court. He knows the risks.

    Michelle M. Russell is an attorney with a passion for employment law and mental health.

    Email: mrussell.ja@icloud.com.

    Source: Nation

13. 

    David

    October 9, 2025 at 4:58 am

    
    

    Life still on books

    Court of Appeal: Maximum sentence for manslaughter remains life imprisonment

    by HEATHER-LYNN EVANSON

    heatherlynevanson@nationnews.com

    THE COURT OF APPEAL still has the discretion to deal with matters that are prevalent in society and the maximum sentence for manslaughter remains life imprisonment.

    This was the declaration from Chief Justice Leslie Haynes as he presided over the appeal brought by convicted manslayers, brothers Eddisa Deon Mitchell and Chris Avian Lord, against their sentences yesterday.

    “One thing that has not been taken away from this Court of Appeal, and I could be wrong, is its discretion to deal with matters that are prevalent in this society. That discretion remains with us and there is something called deterrence as well,” Haynes said.

    “I am lost here because we no longer seem to take into account these principles of sentencing. The principle of deterrence is no longer good law? When last was somebody shot? Last night? Yesterday? And somebody will probably be shot next week.

    “Obviously, as we sit down here, we have not been doing a good job in terms of deterrence,” Haynes said.

    Mitchell and Lord, of 2nd Avenue, Thomas Gap, President Kennedy Drive, St Michael, had pleaded guilty to unlawfully killing – manslaughter – popular Baxter’s Road bar owner Colin Forde on May 10, 2016, after they had denied murdering the shopkeeper on the same date.

    Then presiding judge, now retired Justice Randall Worrell had sentenced Mitchell to 17 years in prison but backdated the sentence to June 10, 2016, the date Mitchell was remanded to prison. He jailed Lord for 18 years and also backdated the sentence to June 10, 2016.

    The appellants’ attorney, Safiya Moore, argued yesterday that the sentencing judge had failed to deduct one-third from the starting sentence, for their guilty pleas, as dictated by the Caribbean Court of Justice decision in the case of Teerath Persaud.

    She said Worrell had, instead, used Guideline II in the guideline manslaughter case of Pierre Lorde, which predated that case.

    Moore suggested the starting sentences should be in the range of 18 to 20 years with the one-third discount then being applied.

    Maximum sentence

    “Guidelines were not written in stone,” the Chief Justice said.

    “We forget in its entirety that the maximum sentence for manslaughter is life. ‘Don’t mind that it’s written on the statute books, forget it’. That’s what you’re asking us,” he said.

    When Haynes suggested that two years could be added to the starting sentence, Moore queried the reasons.

    “Plenty,” the Chief Justice responded.

    Principal State Counsel Oliver Thomas, who appeared for the State in association with State Counsel Dr Zoe King, later argued that the sentences imposed by the trial judge were “quite reasonable and some may say generous”.

    He said the adoption of Guideline II suggested that the judge had taken a reduction for a timely guilty plea into consideration.

    Thomas noted the Court of Appeal was free to remit the matter to the High Court for re-sentencing. Should that be done, he said the case would fall in the top of Guideline II or the bottom of Guideline I of the Elliston Greaves guideline case.

    Haynes, who presided with Justice of Appeal Francis Belle and Justice of Appeal William Chandler, reserved the court’s decision.

    The court had heard that Forde was sitting outside his business, Colin’s Sports Bar and Lounge, on Baxter’s Road, The City, when he was approached by two assailants – Lord and Mitchell – and later shot. He died at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital and death was due to haemorrhagic shock secondary to multiple gunshot wounds.

    Lawmen subsequently held Mitchell at Ashdeane Village, Black Rock, St Michael, and he told them: “I know wunna know it is me that shoot Colin.”

    In his dictated statement, Mitchell said he left home with his brother and it was while they were walking through Westbury Cemetery that his brother revealed he planned to rob “Colin in Baxter’s Road”.

    He said they approached the businessman; Lord made a grab for his chains but failed to get them and, after Forde fought back, he [Mitchell] “got frighten and run up and point the gun at Colin and squeeze the trigger about three times”.

    Source: Nation

14. 

    David

    October 22, 2025 at 5:07 am

    
    

    COURT REPORTS

    Attorney on assault charge

    ATTORNEY Marlon Markland Gordon appeared in court yesterday on an assault charge.

    Gordon, 55, of No. 81 Glen Acres, The Farm, St George, was in the District “A” Magistrates’ Court accused of assaulting court marshal Taurean Millar, occasioning him actual bodily harm, on September 22.

    He pleaded not guilty. There was no objection to bail and Chief Magistrate Ian Weekes released the accused with a surety of $4 000.

    Gordon, who was represented by attorneys Harry Husbands, Jeremy Bowen and Reco Blackman, will reappear in court on January 23 next year.

    Source: Nation

15. 

    David

    November 11, 2025 at 5:59 am

    
    

    It seems that although we have over 1000 lawyers registered the concentration is in other areas.

    : Not enough defence lawyers

    A HIGH COURT JUDGE has expressed frustration at the delays in the system but admits there is very little that can currently be done as there are too few practising defence lawyers.

    “They are engaged in other courts. They can’t be here for whatever reason. I don’t know what more we are expected to do when we have, according to you all, so few defence counsel at the Bar dealing with these serious matters. They can’t be everywhere at the same time,” Justice Pamela Beckles said yesterday.

    She was speaking as she dealt with the matter of Barbados Defence Force (BDF) soldier Renico Amal Grandison, who was in the No. 5 Supreme Court.

    Grandison, of Proute Hill, St Thomas, is accused of unlawfully killing – manslaughter – fellow BDF soldier, Lance Corporal Pablo Kinch, on April 6, 2020.

    Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Krystal Delaney appeared for the prosecution.

    Yesterday, attorney Sian Lange, who was holding a watching brief for the family of the deceased, said the members had expressed “great dismay” at how long the matter was taking to come to fruition.

    “Trial dates have been set before and had to be vacated for various reasons,” she said. “And they have asked me today to express to the court their deep desire to have this matter done so they can bring some closure to them.”

    Unique nature

    The attorney referred to the “unique nature” of the matter – “a soldier killed in a police station while on duty”.

    “They feel as though this is a matter that would have been given a certain amount of priority,” she said.

    “I understand and I have explained to them that it is not through any fault of the courts, and certainly I want to make it clear that I do not believe it is through any fault of the prosecution either, because they have expressed on previous occasions their readiness for trial. They’ve said to me earlier, every time this matter is adjourned, it feels as though they are being made to relive this entire incident,” Lange explained.

    ‘Prosecutor not here’

    Justice Beckles noted the matter was not being heard “not because the court is not here, not because the prosecutor is not here”.

    “I’m just as frustrated, if not more frustrated, than them at the pace which things are going. It is not even 12 o’clock and we’re going to be saying that there’s nothing to do,” the judge said.

    “There are cases set but the attorneys are elsewhere and they would get upset then because we have to say that. We can’t proceed with cases when people are absent, when the attorney is absent.”

    She stressed that priority should be given to certain matters.

    “Yes, we have decided that certain matters are a priority, such as the murderers, but in manslaughter, the same life is lost.

    “I personally do not hold on to the view that the most serious matters are murders. I think people with sexual offences have a right to expect their trial to be heard in a reasonable time and not be eight years old [when the incident took place] and 15 or 20 when it comes to a conclusion,” the judge stressed.

    “So I am hoping that those who have ears to hear, hear, and on the next occasion we do have a file and that we can proceed. I am distressed too that these matters are taking so long, but let’s hope that something will improve in the future,” She then set February 2, 2026, as the trial date and March 4 as the alternate date for trial.

    Source: Nation

16. 

    David

    February 7, 2026 at 7:17 am

    
    

    Attorney pleads not guilty to stealing more than $800 000

    Attorney Hilary Jeffrey Nelson pleaded not guilty to stealing over $800 000 when he appeared in the No. 5 Supreme Court on Thursday.

    Nelson, now 81, of Bagatelle Terrace, St James, was arraigned that between November 13, 2018, and March 4, 2019, he stole £347 560.96, equivalent to BDS$855 000.

    He is being represented by attorney Daquane Nedd, while Senior State Counsel Kevin Forde is prosecuting the matter.

    Justice Pamela Beckles set March 17 as the date for trial and April 13 as the alternate date.

17. 

    David

    March 4, 2026 at 4:13 am

    
    

    Judge slams lawyer’s conduct

    Registrar told to start charge process

    by MARIA BRADSHAW

    mariabradshaw@nationnews.com

    IN AN UNPRECEDENTED MOVE in Barbados’ legal history, a High Court judge has instructed the Registrar of the Supreme Court to file an application for the Disciplinary Committee of the Barbados Bar Association to bring charges against an attorney for professional misconduct.

    The directive was handed down by Justice Shona Griffith on February 2, following a civil suit in which attorney Susanna Thompson was found to have misappropriated over $141 000 held in escrow for a client.

    The ruling marks the first time a judge has exercised the power under Section 19(2) of the Legal Profession Act to direct the Registrar to initiate disciplinary proceedings, signalling a stern warning to legal practitioners regarding the handling of client funds.

    The case, Donna Gittens vs Susanna Thompson, centred on funds belonging to the claimant Gittens. In November 2012, she gave Thompson $141 792.25 – proceeds from a joint account held with her late grandmother – to be held in escrow pending the administration of the grandmother’s estate.

    When the estate matters did not materialise as expected, Gittens sought the return of her money. Thompson, however, failed to repay the funds, leading to a claim for misappropriation.

    No evidence

    In a scathing ruling, Justice Griffith granted summary judgment in favour of Gittens, ordering Thompson to repay the full sum, plus costs and interest.

    The court found that Thompson’s defence was “riddled with implausible explanations, plain untruths, prevarications and incredulous assertions”.

    Thompson had claimed that she paid the money out to the administrator of the deceased’s estate (who has since passed away) based on implied instructions from Gittens. However, the court noted that Thompson produced absolutely no evidence to support this claim – no bank records, no transfer receipts and no file documentation, which she claimed was lost during an office relocation.

    The most damning finding was regarding a court order Thompson allegedly gave to her client. She had informed Gittens that she was being sued by the estate’s representative and provided a “draft order” from a purported court case (Suit No. 1585/2013). Investigations revealed that no such suit existed.

    The judge found that Thompson had engaged in a sustained misrepresentation for nearly three years, fabricating court proceedings to justify why she could not return the funds immediately.

    Justice Griffith stated that the court would be in “dereliction of its duty” if it ignored the serious improprieties regarding Thompson’s conduct as an attorney.

    Legal observers told the MIDWEEK NATION it was the first time in Barbados’ legal history that a judge had instructed that the Registrar file an application for the Disciplinary Committee to bring charges against an attorney, as they underscored the gravity of the findings.

    Complaint

    When contacted yesterday, Liesel Weekes, chairperson of the Bar’s Disciplinary Committee, explained that until the complaint was filed, there was not anything the Disciplinary Committee could do.

    “The court has instructed the Registrar and we would have to see if the Registrar makes the complaint,” she said.

    She pointed out that complaints against attorneys for misconduct could also be made by the Bar Association and the claimant, “but the Disciplinary Committee cannot of itself initiate an action”.

    Weighing in on the matter, a senior attorney stated: “This is not a normal case where the claimant is usually the one to file the complaint. The judge has said that it will be done by the Registrar of the Supreme Court. I cannot recall a case where the trail judge has used this section to compel the Registrar.”

    He added: “In the majority of cases, it was the complainant who filed the case against the lawyer with the Bar Association of Barbados. Only in the case of Vonda Pile did the [Bar] file a complaint.”

    Furthermore, he stated that the Registrar “has to follow that direction and do it quickly, because a Registrar can’t be in breach of an order of the judge”.

    Source: Nation

18. 

    David

    March 4, 2026 at 4:15 am

    
    

    Lawyer to face disciplinary action

    A HIGH COURT JUDGE has directed the Supreme Court Registrar to start the process which would see an attorney being hauled before the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Association to answer allegations of professional misconduct and grave misconduct.

    Justice Shona Griffith gave the order as she dealt with the civil matter, involving the misappropriation of almost $150 000 in money, brought by Donna Lynette Patricia Gittens against attorney Susanna Thompson.

    “The court would be in dereliction of its duty were it to ignore that there are serious improprieties raised in respect of [Thompson’s] conduct as an attorney-at-law, which ought to be brought to the attention of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Association,” the judge said in her written decision.

    ‘Misrepresenting’

    “The conduct arising out of this hearing, which the court finds that it is obliged to cause the Registrar to act under Section 19(1) of the Legal Profession Act, includes [Thompson’s] failure to return the sum of $141 792.25 to [Gittens] and failure to satisfactorily account for that money; agreeing with [Gittens] to misrepresent and on her case – indeed misrepresenting to a third party that she was the attorney-at-law for [Gittens’ deceased grandmother]; producing and/or uttering a false court document, and sustaining the misrepresentation to [Gittens] about the existence and conduct of fictitious court proceedings for almost three years,” Justice Griffith stated. Gittens had retained Thompson as her attorney and paid over $141 792.25 to her to be held in escrow. The sum was the proceeds of a joint account Gittens held with her deceased grandmother, and Gittens had asked Thompson to hold the funds in escrow pending the completion of administration of her grandmother’s estate.

    The suit heard that the attorney subsequently told the woman a claim had been filed against her, Thompson, supposedly by the personal representative of the grandmother’s estate.

    Gittens’ affidavit said she was given a case number and told, by Thompson, that the monies should be paid to the grandmother’s estate. Gittens said she was given a copy of a draft order but, when she checked with the Registration Department, no such claim existed.

    The woman tried to meet with the attorney on numerous occasions but was rebuffed.

    She hired another attorney who demanded Thompson repay the money but up to date, no money had been returned.

    However, Thompson, while not disputing that she had received the money, took issue with the terms of the instructions for holding the money.

    The attorney argued that in accordance with Gittens’ expressed as well as implicit instructions as she understood them, she paid the money over to the personal representative of Gittens’ deceased grandmother’s estate, and therefore did not misappropriate any money.

    However, Justice Griffith, in her judgment, found that Thompson’s case was “riddled with implausible explanations, plain untruths, prevarications and incredulous assertions”.

    ‘Sufficient time’

    “[Thompson’s] explanations are also at odds with conduct that would rationally be expected of an attorneyat- law called upon to answer a claim as serious as misappropriation of monies,” the judge said.

    “Moreover, there has been more than sufficient time from the initial legal demand for the return of the monies in July 2018, for [Thompson] to have accessed or retrieved records to support her claim that she transferred the money to the deceased administrator, or to have followed logically expected lines of inquiry and to put evidence of such lines of inquiry before the court.

    “If there ever were to be an illustration of what Lord Hope meant in Three Rivers by a case being fanciful because its factual basis is entirely without substance, the court is of the considered opinion that [Thompson’s] answer to this claim would be such a case,” the judge noted.

    She ordered Thompson to repay the sum of $141 792.25 forthwith.

    She also awarded Gittens $16 647.86 as prescribed costs as well as post-judgment interest on the judgment sum at the rate of six per cent per annum.

    Justice Griffith then directed the Registrar of the Supreme Court, pursuant to Section 19(2) of the Legal Profession Act, to “cause an application to be made to the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Association for Thompson to answer the allegations of impropriety in her conduct as an attorney-at-law, arising out of the facts of the matter, to answer any allegations made regarding any professional misconduct, including grave misconduct”.

    Source: Nation

19. 

    David

    April 8, 2026 at 2:33 pm

    
    

    EX Judge Sues Government

    RETIRED HIGH COURT JUDGE Dr Sonia Richards has filed a legal claim against the Government of Barbados, accusing some top officials, including former Chief Justice Sir Patterson Cheltenham, of multiple breaches of her constitutional rights.

    Richards, who served on the High Court bench from April 1, 2006, until her retirement on May 17, 2022, at age 66, alleges that she was subjected to systemic abuse, discriminatory treatment and a toxic working environment that culminated in actions she describes as both humiliating and unlawful.

    Her claim, filed in the Supreme Court, names the Attorney General of Barbados and Sir Patterson Cheltenham, now retired, as defendants.

    AG aware of matter

    When contacted for official comment yesterday, Attorney General Wilfred Abrahams said: “I can confirm I’m aware of the matter.”

    The complaint, filed as a Fixed Date Claim Form on April 4 last year, details a series of alleged constitutional violations, including breaches of Sections 11B, 11C, 15, and 16 of this country’s Constitution, which protect citizens from deprivation of property without compensation, ensure protection under the law and shield individuals from inhuman or degrading treatment.

    Richards further alleges violations of Sections 84.1, 84.1A, 84.3, and 84.4, relating to the security of tenure, proper consideration for extensions beyond the age of 65 and the process prescribed for removal from office.

    Central to Richards’ claim is the dramatic incident of April 6, 2022, when the Chief Justice reportedly demanded that Richards surrender her office swipe card and keys.

    Blocked

    When she declined, her access to her office was subsequently blocked. Six days later, she attempted to enter her office at the White Park Road, St Michael court complex, only to find her swipe card and office key no longer functional. Security personnel had to assist her entry and she discovered that her office lock had been changed and her name removed from the door. Files she had not left were scattered within and an acting judge had been installed in her office without her consent.

    Richards alleges that the treatment she endured was not an isolated incident but the culmination of years of overwork and professional disregard.

    She claims to have been assigned heavier workloads than her peers, routinely working until 9 p.m. or 10 p.m., while raising concerns about the discriminatory and abusive treatment in writing to senior judicial officials, only to receive no formal response.

    The claim also highlights a troubling denial of her constitutional right to be properly considered for a tenure extension beyond 65 years old. Six months before her 65th birthday, she requested a twoyear extension through the acting Chief Justice to the Prime Minister.

    Instead, she claims she was granted a one-year extension by the Governor General without consultation or explanation, with official notice arriving just hours before her retirement. She maintains that this breach deprived her of a legitimate expectation under the Constitution and caused significant professional humiliation.

    Personal affront

    Compounding the personal affront, on April 17, 2022, the

    SUNDAY SUN newspaper reported a statement from then Chief Justice Sir Patterson denying that Richards had been locked out of her office.

    Richards contends that the statement, made with full knowledge of its national and international circulation, was defamatory and publicly undermined her credibility.

    The claim seeks extensive damages, including compensation for defamation, negligence, breach of employment terms and exemplary damages. She alleges that the government and its senior judicial officers failed in their duty of care.

    Richards is also seeking damages for the breach of the terms of employment as a judge of the high court. (BA)

    Source: Nation