Topics

Django

April 2, 2017 Source

The Guyana Chronicle, which obtained Justice Franklin Holder’s letter to the Chancellor (ag), the Hon Yonette Cummings-Edwards, complaining about the conduct of the Attorney-General and Minister of Legal Affairs, the Hon Basil Williams, during the hearing of a matter in court on March 23, tried its best to obfuscate. The letter has now been published and Justice Holder’s searing comments are in the public domain.

This less than professional reporting by the Guyana Chronicle was probably the reason why the Judge’s letter found its way to other sections of the media. The Judge described Mr Williams’s conduct as “despicable” and “contemptuous.” The Judge said, quoting his letter from the Stabroek News: “I am not prepared to sit and hear Mr Williams as an attorney-at-law in any matter whatsoever, unless he makes a genuine and meaningful apology to my satisfaction, in open court, both to me and to members of the Bar since they too were scandalized by his despicable conduct.” The Guyana Chronicle, which claimed to have had the Judge’s letter, reported none of this.

From the initial public disclosure of the matter by Mr Anil Nandlall, former Attorney-General, against whom Mr Williams was engaged in the case before Justice Holder, the statement that attracted the most interest was Mr Williams’s reference to a Magistrate who was the last person who told him what he should say “and he is now dead.” It came across as if Mr Williams was threatening the life of the Judge, which Mr Williams has denied. He said that “the allegation that I threatened to kill him, and all that nonsense, that is not so…” But while the Judge mentioned the statement in his letter, his complaint was rather about what appeared to be a rather rash statement, to put it mildly, made by Mr Williams at the end of the exchange. The Judge’s letter reportedly said: “This was followed by a most egregious statement by Mr Williams, which is: ‘I could say what I want to say and when I want to say it. I have always been like that.’”

Mr Williams has given two interviews to the media on the matter. In both he has blamed Mr Nandlall’s alleged interruptions during the hearing. Mr Williams said: “We can’t allow Nandlall to create this problem and then we leave it unresolved…Nandlall is the one who caused the problem for three hours…” Mr Williams has accused Mr Nandlall of “iniquity” and suggested that the Judge’s reaction against him was one of “transferred frustration.” The Judge, who seemed unaware of this highly innovative concept, denied Mr Williams’s allegation against Mr Nandlall. Mr Williams suggested that “the judge and I will resolve the issue” and “we will work with the Judge.” Regarding an apology, he said “I don’t know about apology.”

There are rules about the behaviour of lawyers in court. The Judge could there and then have cited Mr Williams for contempt in the face of the court, as he indicated in his letter. To do so he would have had to inform Mr Williams that he was charging him with contempt, state the particulars of his conduct which amounted to contempt and invite him to answer the charge. Mr Williams could have answered it then, or ask for an adjournment to mount a defence, or plead guilty, later. If Mr Williams pleads or is found guilty, he could have been fined or worse, imprisoned.

The Legal Practitioners (Amendment) Act 2010 Rule VII (3) states that “an Attorney-at-Law shall treat the court with courtesy and respect…” Rule VII (5) states that “Attorney-at-Law shall not exchange in angry verbal exchanges in Court even if made soto voce.” Section 34(2) states: “An Attorney-at-Law who breaches the code of conduct counts as an act of professional misconduct.”

Mr Williams, a highly visible public figure holding one of the most important positions in government, can avoid the sanction of the Judge by not appearing before him again, but this is not an option for a person holding his offices and especially since the matter has reached the Chancellor (ag) and the President. Since a private apology is now out of the question because the Judge’s letter demanding an apology in open court is in the public domain, Mr Williams could now be forced to consider a public apology. Failing this, the Chancellor (ag) can convene the Full Court and set in motion the process to hear a complaint of misconduct against Mr Williams. The Full Court can impose a penalty as severe as disbarment.

The President has no business in how the courts treat with the matter or in mediating an outcome, although, representing the government, which is Mr Williams’s client, the President may suggest a course of conduct to Mr Williams. Even if the matter is concluded to the satisfaction of the Judge, the President may have additional, political, concerns.

A long time ago Mr Williams and I exchanged sharp and angry words before a Judge in open court. We were both wrong because we both participated. The next time I saw Mr Williams in the Supreme Court corridor, he approached me with outstretched hand. He can bring this matter to an end.

Replies sorted oldest to newest

DjangoAdmin

Former Chief Magistrate weighs in on Justice Holder’s complaint.

April 2, 2017 Source.

Dear Sir,

KINDLY permit me to make some comments on the recent situation involving a sitting judge of the High Court and the country’s Attorney General. It would seem that the lawyer’s detractors are calling for his career to end or for him to be stripped of or relieved of his position, or for imprisonment or other dire punishments.

In actual fact though, on a more careful and complete analysis of the facts so far presented it would seem however, that it is the judge who may have disqualified himself from continuing and/or remaining as a judicial functionary, in service to the people of this country.

Just an analysis of some key issues will make the case for this disquieting fact. Of course, there are others.

In the first place, there was this statement by the judge,

”…I am not prepared to sit to hear Mr Williams as an Attorney-at-Law in any matter whatsoever…”

On the facts however, Mr Williams was not appearing in his private capacity in the matter on the day in question. Instead, Mr Williams was appearing as the Attorney General representing the business of the people of Guyana, in that court.

Is the judge really saying that the people of Guyana can no longer attend before him to have matters adjudicated, despite the fact that the taxpayers are paying the judge a salary of possibly more than one million dollars per month?

That is a pretty strong position for any judicial functionary to take and should not be taken lightly.

Secondly, the issue of the judge’s letter to the chancellor being made available somehow to the press.

This is the issue of breach of confidentiality in so many respects, and goes to the confidentiality of even pending matters before this particular judicial functionary.

It goes without saying that this matter is extremely serious and gives rise to the issue of confidentiality even higher up.

The third relates to the subject matter of the letter written by the judicial functionary.

It is reproduced as follows, with some modifications.

”RE: REPORT ON CONTEMPTUOUS BEHAVIOUR OF MR B W SC.”

The letter calls itself a ”report.”

This begs the question of ”Report on what?”

On the facts, it could be asked, was there any investigation into the incident? Were there any statements taken or confrontations held?

On these facts, it would seem that the judicial functionary already has a very fixed mindset, and one that might be very dangerous for any matters involving the country’s Attorney General to continue to be placed before him, apologies or NOT.

A more fitting subject matter would have been to say, ” Re: Incident occurring in my court on such a date and at such a time.”

One thing is clear. The Attorney General seemed to have been generally dis-satisfied with the court proceeding, on the day in question, and the judge himself seemed to have been aware of this fact, to the point where reports are coming out that he felt ”threatened” and in fear of his life.

On the issue of whether or not there was any ”threat to kill,” it must be first established that the lawyer was known to have killed someone, and this must be established as a ”notorious fact.” Otherwise the mere utterings of a lawyer amount to nothing more than ”mouthing off”, and any experienced judicial officer would have recognised it for being just that.

On the question of what an experienced judicial officer would have done, if matters were escalating into a brawl or unpleasantness, then the wise and prudent course would have been to adjourn the matter and invite the brawling participants into chambers.

After all, if a judicial functionary CANNOT settle disputes in his or her own court, then what is the purpose of that person continuing as a ”judicial functionary”?

The way forward in the present dispute is for there to be no more written statements, EXCEPT FOR ONE. The one that states that this matter is settled.

Outside of this then one of the lawyers should lose his position, and it should NOT be the country’s Attorney General.

Yours Faithfully.
Juliet Holder-Allen
Attorney at Law.

4/2/171:58 PM

Former Member

Oh lawd it looks like jackass Williams found his counterpart jenny-ass in Juliet Holder-Allen in Guyana.

She questioning the use of the word Report.

"This begs the question of ”Report on what?”...what about Report of that AH behavior in the Judge's court.

4/2/172:24 PM

Bibi HaniffaGNI Queen

Jenny ass just wants to be heard. She doesn't have a clue what is going on!

4/2/172:27 PM

Former Member

Bibi Haniffa posted:
Jenny ass just wants to be heard. She doesn't have a clue what is going on!

Maybe she will get silk if she didn't get it already. These people are an embarrassment to Guyana.

4/2/172:29 PM

DjangoAdmin

Settle it in the courtroom

Apr 02, 2017 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom, http://www.kaieteurnewsonline....it-in-the-courtroom/

A matter involving an exchange of words within a courtroom between a judge and a lawyer should end within the courtroom. What began in the courtroom should end there and not have to be settled outside of it.

The President should not become enjoined to this matter, until such time as a resolution takes place within the courtroom. Only then should the President become involved. And only if he feels that the situation warrants such involvement, because it is likely to bring his government into disrepute or is inconsistent with the standards of public conduct which he has laid down for his ministers and officials.

A report in one section of the media had suggested that the judiciary was to have written to the President on this matter. It is not clear whether this was true, but if it is true, then it would be an unfortunate development which will only compound a simple matter.

The judiciary should not be writing to the President about any occurrence in the court. The judiciary does not have to explain itself; it does not have to seek a remedy from the government. Nor does it have to be complaining.

Any complaint by the judiciary to the Executive about an incident within a courtroom will create the impression that the judiciary is expecting the government to take some action in the matter. It is not good for the judiciary to be perceived as having expectations from the government.

There are means available to a judge if he or she feels offended by anything which happens in his or her courtroom. In fact, in this instance, the judge concerned has clearly indicated what action he intends to take and what he expects to happen. Provisions exist for such matters to be dealt with condignly by the judge after due process.

There is supposed to be separation in law and in practice between the judiciary and the Executive. That distance is the buffer which prevents interference or influence by one over the other.

The President can, of his own volition, take whatever action he wishes in relation to the matter. In fact, the President has asked for an explanation based on reports he has seen or heard. That is his right to seek clarification, but it may be precipitate for the President to asking for an explanation unless a formal complaint would have been made to him.

A formal complaint from the judiciary, however, is unnecessary. The matter should be handled internally, within the judiciary.

This matter, if allowed to fester, will not be good for the image of the country. Guyana had in the past sullied its reputation in the region and further afield by narrowing the distance between these two important arms of the State. The flag of the ruling party was once flown over the Court of Appeal. Long established conventions were set aside in relation to members of the Bench becoming members of the Executive. This precedent was criticized within the Caribbean.

We now have former judges writing letters in the press on contentious political and legal issues. The arguments made in those exchanges have, in some instances, been demolished by persons of lesser rank. This is not just embarrassing; it has implications for the respect that is likely to be shown by the younger generation to our jurists.

It is not an issue of freedom of expression. It is a question of conforming to long established conventions and the influence that an ex-judge’s decisions and opinions can have on sitting members of the Bench and wider society. An ex-judge’s opinion carries some weight and credibility, but when it is so easily demolished it raises a number of troubling questions.

Every citizen has the right to work. But ex-judges should not have to appear as advocates of litigants in cases. Imagine an ex-member of the Bench having to be overruled by a magistrate or a judge who is his or her junior. Imagine the influence that an ex-judge appearing as an advocate can have on a magistrate or judge.

The government should also stay clear of issuing awards to sitting members of the Bench, and those sitting members should refuse those awards while sitting. It is no harm in accepting them once one is off the Bench, but not while one is a sitting member of the Bench. A similar situation caused uproar in neighbouring Trinidad and Tobago, not because of any bias, but because of the mere perception which such an action can trigger.

4/2/173:02 PM

Skip to main content

Topics

Former Chief Magistrate weighs in on Justice Holder’s complaint.

Settle it in the courtroom

Add Reply

Membership Required

Remove From Your Block List

Manage Follow Preferences

Block

Premium Membership Required

GNI VIP Member

Please wait...