- Details
-
Opinion Pieces
-
Friday, 11 April 2014 04:00
-
George Rick James
Dear editor, for reasons best known to himself, Attorney General Justin Simon has decided to engage me in a battle of nerves over the amazing revelation made a month ago that one of the judges of the Appeal Court who heard the voter registration case is a voter who stands to be disenfranchised depending on which way the judgment, in which the judge has a hand, goes.
In a specious letter to the editor of the newspaper that published the story under the title: “The Judge In Question” the quixotic minister of Justice and Legal Affairs wants to use scare tactics about “contempt of court” to try and stifle discussion on the matter.
If this is a veiled attack and interference with the people’s right to freedom of speech, then the Attorney General had better get ready to defend his position before the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords. That said, I shall share the salient passage of the letter with the general public.
Dear Madam Editor
“Kindly be advised that while judgment of any court can be objectively criticized on the basis of law, logic and precedent, one walks a fine line when one raises issues of bias of conflict of duty and interest on the part of a Judge without actual proof.
“Allow me to intervene by pointing out to the Attorney General that it is the presence “of the judge in question” on the panel that has raised the suspicion of conflict and not the author of the article. In addition it is impossible to criticize a judgment that has not to date been handed down.
“Judicial Impartiality is a significant part of justice. Judges should decide legal disputes free of any personal bias or prejudice. As a result of a conflict of interest a judge may be unable to maintain impartiality in a case and thus should be disqualified”. Leslie W. Abramson.
But back to Mr Justin Simon’s letter which continues as follows: “It is one thing to draw the public’s attention to a fact (and I have confirmed that Justice Gertel Thom had once been registered as a voter). But it is wrong to categorically state that the judge’s disenfranchisement will influence her judgment.”
“Once”, check again for yourself Mr Minister of Justice and you will find that the name of Justice Gertel Thom appears in the latest Register of Electors which was published in January, 2014 at A2014 in the Constituency of St John’s Rural North.
As to the deliberate and pernicious distortion of the fact where you alleged that it was stated that “the Judge’s disenfranchisement will influence her judgment is a fabrication of the Attorney General’s own conscience because I deny and repudiate totally that any such statement was ever made by me.
If the editors of newspaper, the talk show hosts, the politicians, and lawyers are prepared to be cowed into silence by the threat of “contempt of court” then I and the Free and Fair Election League Inc. will boldly speak out in defence of the truth and damn the penalty, “you will never turn vice into virtue” - Quintilian.
George Rick James
Secretary
Reporting by Caribarena news, publishing by Ofer Shaked.
13 Comments In This Article
Keegan
..
tenman
Fake and phony election leauge
JP Farnsworth
Small Island Justice
Legis Lux
Straight Talk- is it wild west time?
..
tenman
@ Straight Talk
skyewill
RE: In Defence of Truth
Just Saying
@Tenman and Skyewill
Straight Talk
lack commonsense
tenman
PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS
This, is not only contingent upon " ...professionalism, integrity and honesty," but also upon the " ...fundamental principle" that " ...Justice must not only be seen to be done, but MANIFESTLY appear to have been done."
This has always been the " ...Guiding Principle" for adjudicators. It allows judicial officers to give acute considerations in abstaining from adjudicatory proceedings, likely to provoke the inevitable " ...Negative public perceptions and/or opinion."
Judicial officers, shall always ensure that they do not create situations, whereby their " ...individual and/or collective judgments" may, rightly or wrongly, become suspect and influence such perceptions.
Therefore, it might be " ...judicious" for adjudicators to consider RECUSING themselves from obvious " ...contentious issues, particularly where " ...personal interests might be at stake or preliminary interventions may have affected litigious parties."
While the issues at Bar are " ...sub judice" or awaiting judicial determination, until a " ...Judgment" has been delivered, there was none to criticize.
Nonetheless, individuals shall always endeavor to demonstrate " ...objectivity in their criticisms and respectful in their expressions."
RAWLSTON POMPEY
RE: In Defence of Truth
Cool Ruler
JUST FOR RICK
WICKED SET OF PEOPLE
Critically Thinking
Skyewill
In Defence of Truth
NIMBY
RSS