Provoking the Ire in Commissioner Browne - Part I

Being angry at them

Experience has taught that the existence of “...an innate destructive propensity” has always been part of human nature and psyche. Greek Tragic Dramatist Euripides posited that “... Events will take their natural course” and that “...it is no good being angry at them, for time will explain it all.”

More importantly, it is to man’s knowledge and experiences that “...Those God wishes to destroy, He first make mad and deprives them of their senses” [Euripides]. Thus, it has been man’s natural inclination in “...waging as many wars as his “...strength; ...energies; ...strategies and/or enemies would allow. Advisedly, he may retreat when danger was imminent or when the odds were against him, surrendering only when “...defeat was inevitable.” Additionally, most of man’s difficulties had come upon him by reckless expressions. Thus, it was man’s mouth that had stirred up human strife. Anticipating consequences for those who would speak with reckless abandon, the Scripture cautions “...A fool’s lips enter contention and his mouth calls for strokes” [Proverbs: 18: 6].




From Law enforcement experience, despite warm handshakes and pleasantries, some environments were known to be “...socially and/or politically hostile.” Hence, agencies and their administrators operating in such environments shall learn to understand, interact and function in such environments.” Hence, “...inter-agency cooperation and cohesiveness have always been critical factors to their collective success. Frequently, external forces and/or influences had impacted negatively on the way some agencies were designed to function. Sometimes administrators were either called out or lured into the “...Rain to Dance.”




Speaking to “...Political Rain Dance,” former Jamaican Commissioner, Francis Forbes seemed to have mastered the art. In a BBC interview, when asked “...How do you manage in such hostile environment (with gunmen on one side and politicians on the other), amusingly, he found it easier to answer “...You have to learn to do the Political Rain Dance? Not sure how this was done, but he had survived both the Jamaican gunmen and the politicians. It would seem, however, in performing the “ ...Political Rain Dance,” lest one stumbles and falls, today’s Commissioners must “ ...calculate their Spaces and Paces, dancing to carefully determined Steps and “ ...avoid as many of the Drops not falling from the skies.”




It may be seen that in all human affairs, there is plenty of “...Excitement and Drama.” The Police Drama Group’s dramatic presentation “...Under the Shack-Shack Tree,” presented plenty in celebration of the agency’s week of activities [Playwright/Dramatist: Vaughn Walter]. Universally, within the sacred Chambers of Parliament, there are many “...Drama Kings and Queens.” Some have been indoctrinated, while others may have “...written their own scripts. Within the nation, it was not clear what role “the Dramatist Vaughn Walter” may have played in auditions for new Senate Members “...Samantha Marshall; ...Shawn Nicholas and Mervin ‘MR’ Richards.”  In presentations they called “...Debates,” there is usually plenty, and even after Senator Elmore ‘Tamo’ Charles reportedly “...absconded,” there is still plenty.  Senate Members who appeared not to have liked “...Drama were given the hammer or “...Forced on Vacation.” Viewed with objectivity, some presentations have been “...meaningful and edifying.” Conversely,  ...some facetious and entertaining, thereby creating theatrical circus/market place-like atmosphere; ...some irrelevant to the debate, thereby sparking chaos and confusion, while ...some were egregious and hurting to those with no opportunity or “...Parliamentary Privilege” of making contemporaneous responses.” 




As in the game of Cricket, some remarks may be likened to “...No Balls or Intimidatory Bowling.”  Keenly observant umpires/match referees are required to see Curtly Ambrose bowling in such manner, and ruled them as interpretations dictate. Then dependent upon “...calculation, previous warnings, persistency or exhaustion of limit for bouncers,” penalize offending bowlers.” Though the verbal feud that had developed between Finance and Economy Honourable Harold Lovell, Director of Public Prosecutions Anthony and the Commissioner of Police Vere Browne, may not be likened to cricket, there are schools of thought that remarks attributed to the public rebuff, may have “...implications for future relations and/or security of tenure.” It was obvious that neither officer raising objections had been cowed into submission.




For instance, what may have been, rightly or wrongly, seen as “...unprofessional candor,” Finance and Economy Minister’s remarked “...There are Laws on the books where there is patent evidence, where ‘WE’ (Executive) know for a FACT that the Police Force and the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions have in their possession information on which I think most right-thinking citizens expected action to be taken” [Observer Media: Friday, August 30, 2013]. The matter under legislative considerations was that which affects the “...physical being-” person- Murder, Serious Wounding, Rape inter alia, hence, the “...Offences Against the Person Act.” The remarks referred to “...Bail Conditions for “...Statutory offences” that from Law enforcement perspective and Law of Evidence, had absolutely “...NO RELEVANCE” to the “...Debate in issue.” Though the officers may have considered the remarks “...grievous, officious, insensitive and/or provocatively callous,” their primary concerns may have been the inferential “...accusatory and/or intimidatory tactics employed.” Calmly, but publicly, they may have been forced by the remarks in responding in a manner “...appropriate to the circumstances,” yet with professional decency.




Seizing the opportunity under “...Parliamentary Privilege, “...inferentially,” Minister Lovell had suggested” that the “...respective performances” of Commissioner of Police Vere Browne and Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Anthony Armstrong, inter alia, were “...Suspect; ...less than desirable; and ...disappointingly short on public and official expectations of deliveries.” While they quarrel, fuss and fight, Harold Lovell in his capacity as a qualified attorney, may be the first to concede of its “...Non-relevance” to the debate in question.  Though the “...Parliamentary Privilege” may have been inappropriately used” in attacking two offices and a citizen, the vexed question is if the House so allowed, “...Why apportion blame to the Minister?” For all intents and purposes, while the clearly ill-conceived non-relevant remarks may have been seen as “...irresponsible,” viewed with objectivity, such may have reflected some degree of “...anxiety, despair and desperation,” brought on by great urgency for prosecution of those suspected of wrongdoing.




Notwithstanding the possible negative inferences, it would have been improper for the referenced officers to speak publicly to the “...state of the economy,” no matter how depressing. When references were made to the “...offices of the Police and Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP),” though there may have been no breaches to Standing Order 36 (1), professional wisdom may have suggested otherwise. Even as Member of Parliament Steadroy ‘Cutie’ Benjamin sought vainly in attempting to discourage the remarks, the Minister was clearly not in breach of “...Standing Order 36 (5). It states “...No Member shall impute improper motive to ANY Member of the House.” Neither the Commissioner nor the Director of Public Prosecutions is a member of the House.




Though not expressing outrage, Media reports quoted Queen’s Counsel and Defence attorney Dane Hamilton as saying “...I am deeply concerned about the level of misconception that surrounds this Leroy King issue; ...On September 7, 2010, the order was varied and King was permitted by the Court to move about without his Surety; ...It is not correct for the Minister to say King is not supposed to move about without his surety.” Seemingly out of an abundance of caution, he reportedly advised his client to divorce himself from certain activities [Observer Media: Sept 5, 2013]. Apart from the contentious issue of the “...IHI” issue raised by the Finance Minister was the “...Bail Conditions that were reportedly “...Judicially varied by the High Court Justice, Mario Michel” [September7, 2010]. The variation order relaxed a “...stringent conditionality that affected unaccompanied movement” of the national pending extradition to the United States.




Lack of knowledge of the existence of Standing Order 37, by Members deemed to know or reckless not to know, is no reason for convicting the Minister. Interestingly, several Grade 6 students under the tutelage of  Principal Rolston Nikeo of the T.N. Kirnon School on Civics, had examined  “...Standing Order 37” and had reportedly made pertinent observations that either Members of the House and/or the Chair may have inadvertently overlooked. This Standing Order speaks only to “...Scope of Debate.” From the Principal’s instructions, their understanding of its unambiguously stated language, “...Debate upon any Motion; ...Bill; or ...Amendments shall be ‘RELEVANT’ to such ...motion, bill or amendments.”




When the audio-recorded remarks were aired, responses by the nation’s Director of Public Prosecutions-Anthony Armstrong respecting the status of the “...IHI File,” and the Commissioner of Police-Vere Browne, regarding “...Bail Conditions for Leroy King,” were swift and uncompromising. Both officers may have “...drawn reasonable inferences,” that the issues raised may have had the effect of “...subjecting them to public ridicule; ...provoking public disquiet, mistrust and loss of confidence in the integrity of the respective Departments.” Clearly, had “...Administrative Protocol,” followed, concerns, “...real or imaginary,” may have been prudently, quietly and properly raised outside the Legislative Chambers and/or the electronic media.” There are the offices of ( i) “...Commissioner of Police-Vere Browne; (ii) ...Director of Public Prosecutions-Anthony Armstrong; (iii) ...Registrar of the High Court; (iv) ...Minister of Justice Senator Dr. Errol Cort and the ...Ministry of Legal Affairs-”Attorney General Justin L. Simon QC.”




While like nature’s twisted twigs cannot change without human intervention, “...unverified or un-clarified information or Facts of Life” can be “...calculatedly and/or unintentionally twisted” as to appear authentic and believable. Given the circumstances under which the issue of Leroy King’s Bail Conditions was raised, it was apparent that “...Public Deception” was never the intention of Finance and Economy Minister Honourable Harold Lovell. He may have “...Provoked the Ire in Commissioner Vere Browne.” Adamant that the Minister should “...Get his Facts straight” before engaging in media-frenzied charade, was an equally determined Commissioner Browne. Mindful of the Catholic Prayer, “...Hail Mary Full of Grace,” calmly and politely, respectfully, but firmly, he urged with subtle directions “...Mr. Minister, I respectfully suggest that you do your research; ...Get the correct facts and  ...Come back to this programme and read the conditions” [Observer Radio: September 4, 2013].




Appearing on a Talk Radio programme, the Finance Minister, though he had seemingly harbored certain “...Illusory Facts,” he demonstrated “ ...an aura of conviction and determination in obtaining the facts, insisting that he would like to “ ...examine the physicality of the purported document.” He was clearly not under the pressure of the Commissioner.” However, conscious that the contentious remarks and the sensitive nature of the issues could have escalated into “...an unnecessary public squabble,” with modesty and aplomb, Minister Lovell calmly and politely insisted, “...To the best of my knowledge and belief, I was speaking to my understanding of the Bail conditions, as originally ordered by the Court.” When practicing colleague Dane Hamilton QC sought to appease his mind over the matter, cordially extending invitations for Chamber visits, he expressed adamancy that he must ascertain for himself whether he was “...right or wrong” over remarks made by him, in respect to Leroy King’s Bail Conditions and his “ ...Suspected Electoral Activities” in areas covered under his parliamentary representation.




In exceptional cases, Bail was a “...Fundamental Individual Right,” yet contingent upon the discretion of Courts, inter alia, factoring into consideration “...public safety; ...perpetrator’s safety and by extension, National Security. However, it was the observation that such right was observed more in “...Breach than in Practice.” Framers of the Constitution anticipated that there would be insufficient accommodation and/or over-crowding in the nation lone penal institution and provided for some wrongdoers to be granted or offered bail. They were mindful that some offenders, by reasons of indigence and/or persistency in committing crimes, protection of society and “...Cash Component,” could see them languishing in prison, when “...Bail was Excessive.” In actuality, in many instances when it was offered, wrongdoers could ill-afford purchasing “...Bread, Butter and Cheese (BBC),” temporary staple for detainees: [Law enforcement terminology]. There is empirical evidence that this situation has partly impacted negatively on prison discipline, conditions and overcrowding. Manifestations and public reactions to these were to be heard through the electronic media [Radio Observer: September 9, 2013].




The coining of the term “...Cash Component” may be attributed to then “...Defence Attorney Harold Lovell.” Frequently used, this was a condition he had sought the Court’s indulgence in considering in his applications for bail, that his clients may enjoy their liberty, pending final determination of their cases. In clear and precise language, Section 5 (4) of the Constitution Order 1981 states “...When a person is arrested ‘EXCESSIVE BAIL’ shall not be required in those cases where bail is being granted.” Hence, an application to a Superior Court with submissions on “...Excessiveness” of the conditionalities, may be varied, if such Court so finds. In the context of “...Excessive Bail” was not limited to a “...Cash Component, but includes other “...stipulated conditions.” For many people, their minds were reportedly boggled that the Legislative Chambers were used for what they had, rightly or wrongly, described as “...Parliamentary Drama.”




 What obtained after a Case File has been referred to the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), might be left only to the “...imagination, speculations, ill-formed beliefs and/or perceptions of citizens.” Suffice it to say, that within the office of the DPP, are “...processes for dealing with Police Files. These include “...Giving acute consideration to the Evidence and possible Indictments.” Thus, such evidence shall be substantiating to the offences charged and aid indictments of other offences called Counts. The office also looks at the nature and gravity of the crime; ...public interest in prosecutions and/or public policy decisions in satisfaction of such interest. There are also considerations to directions that might be given to Law enforcement in continuing investigations.




Thus, with Quarterly Assizes and Scheduled Appellate Hearings, a DPP is not an idle man/woman. While not necessarily offering unsolicited defence, like Justice Minister Senator Dr. Errol Cort, also an attorney-at-law, having regard to the spike in “...Gun Crimes, even with marginal success in arrest and preparation of Case Files for Jury Trial and interviewing and refreshing memory of witnesses,” Finance Minister Honourable Harold Lovell NEVER thought a DPP sits idly. Though not functioning in a laboratory, like the scientists, he too must do research in his Law Library. These, therefore, reflects some of the official matters that rest solely with the office-holder. Thus, under Section 88 of the Constitution Order 1981, the officer holder, is empowered to make “...Final Prosecutorial Decisions, not Members of the Executive or in another capacity, such as Parliament.” Thus, prosecutions were to be contingent upon “...substantive, sufficient, credible and irrefutable evidence ‘FIT’ to engage the attention of a Jury’ “...Sole Judges of Facts” in determining “...Innocence or Guilt.”




Having regard to the “...Conduct of the parliamentary proceedings; ...impromptu presentation to the particularities contained in the Bill for the Amendment of the Offences Against the Person Act-2013; ...Failure by House Members in making formal objections to the Non-relevant remarks; ...Parliamentary approval of the Remarks; ...Non-consideration of mitigating circumstances; ...Non-compliance with procedures under the “...Freedom of Information Act in accessing pertinent Bail information” and  Failure by Queen’s Counsel Dane Hamilton in making submissions on colleagues behalf, as a “ ...properly directed Tribunal,” Minister Harold Lovell is “...FOUND NOT GUILTY




While heads of the agencies may have deemed the assertions on the issues “...provocative, malicious and/or unfounded,” the damning remarks may have been made impulsively. And though, passionately delivered through the Legislative Chambers, the surrounding circumstances motivating the ill-conceived move, may have been influenced by “ ...PERSONAL” dissatisfaction with the investigative/prosecutorial progress and/or non-realization of what may very well be “...broken promises in the delivery of justice.” This assertion came against the background that Senator Dr. Errol Cort, with responsibility for Justice, had not engaged in such charade. Seemingly, the “...former legal practitioner” appeared not to have learned from Prime Minister Honourable Baldwin Spencer, who at a public rally said “...Justice is SLOW but Justice is sure.” Save and except that the Minister was under a spell of illusion, as an attorney he is deemed to know that was not how “...Criminal Justice works.”




Notwithstanding the “...Not Guilty Verdict, lessons may ‘NOT’ have been learned from previous experiences, with emotional outbursts from Gender Affairs Minister Honourable Dr. Jacqui Quinn-Leandro. Passionately moved by the release of a detainee accused of the “...gruesome murder of a 10 year-old student Jemuel Samuel,” due to lack of evidence, in shock and disgust, she had impulsively blurted “...Somebody dropped the ball.” In the incident, an accused juvenile had languished in prison for nine months. Then seemingly pointing an accusatory index finger at the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Anthony Armstrong, she had unwittingly remarked “...We will ‘DEAL’ with you” [June 2006].




Though, Director of Public Prosecutions Anthony Armstrong may have quietly frowned over the expressed sentimentality, he allowed sanity and common sense to prevail. That was then and DPP Anthony Armstrong prudently kept his silence. He was not obliged in accepting responsibility for Legislators deficiency in knowledge of criminal investigations and/or “...evidential and prosecutorial awareness.” However, he may have been vindicated, when subsequently, the “...FIELDER,” was identified by Justice Minister Honourable Senator Collin Derrick, who through Consultant Alphonse Breau, effected the “...DEALING.” This had resulted in the “...DROPPING” of Commissioner of Police Delano Christopher from his team. The reason advanced, inter alia, had been failure in “...CATCHING” the perpetrator of Jemuel Samuel’s murder [February 2008].




Comparatively speaking to a “...half-full bottle of Wadadli beer,” cold or hot, shaken, such remarks suggested that there will have been “...more froth than beer.” Five years later [August 28,2013], while no such vague threat had been made by Finance Minister Honourable Harold Lovell, asserting the existence of “ ...Patent Evidence” for action to be taken in the contentious IHI matter, such remarks may not have been taken and delivered through Parliament. Such remarks were open to negative interpretations, including ‘inferential suggestions’ that something nefarious, regarding lack of investigative or prosecutorial progress” may have occurred. Hence, an intelligent and reasonable man may have taken discrete steps in accessing pertinent information on issues of interest. Like Minister Lovell, the media and a curious public, it was the “...lack of, or inaccessibility to Public Information” that had provoked strained relations between Law enforcement and those they are obliged to “...protect and serve.” This was known to have sparked public debates, spurred by unnecessary parliamentary ranting.” Frequently, this had the effect of impregnating minds of “...simpleton and even intellectuals with assertions that might be “...unfounded and/or misleading, thereby inducing a “...false sense of belief; ...arousing suspicion and doubt and provoking nagging public and official criticisms and loss of confidence.”




While the remarks may have brought “...exposure and discomfiture,” it may not necessarily be seen as “...mischief making.”  This seemed consistent with a defence strategy, previously employed by Senior Counsel John Fuller. In his heyday, with fox-like cunningness, he would “ ...deliberately make a statement adverse to the case for  Prosecution, and before “Standing Prosecutor or practicing legal officers” could “ ...raise objections,”  he would quickly say “ ...If it pleases, My Lord, I withdraw.” By then, he would have succeeded with his ploy- “...the Jury would have already heard.” Members of the Jury with high IQ were known to possess “...photographic memory,” thus, trial Judges Must Warn and give proper direction to the Jury, particularly at Summation, to discard and/or ignore the statement, to avert “...Miscarriage of Justice.” With thousands of citizens listening to the remarks, Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Anthony Armstrong and Commissioner of Police (COP) might have reasons to believe that the remarks “ ...Impugned their personal honour and challenged” their competency, efficiency and effectiveness in managing their investigative and prosecutorial duties [R v Richards Ex parte Fitzpatrick and Browne: 1955: 92 CLR 171]. This case was said to have “...limited Parliamentary Rights” [Wikipedia: Australia].




The curious may ask “ ...Who is Harold Lovell?” Like many people across the globe, characteristically, Harold Lovell has a distinctive personality reflecting unique human qualities. Culturally refined, with taste and class, the bespectacled Minister, meticulous and dapperly- wearing only the finest tailored suits in the conduct of both “...private and public affairs.” He is intelligent and eloquent, equally as much as he is charismatic, personable and affable. He had endeared himself to many people and had won hearts far and near. He had exhibited natural traits and ambitions toward leadership. Thus, it was not surprising that he had boldly, but unsuccessfully tried his luck, through the democratic process in an attempt at ousting Prime Minister Honourable Dr. Baldwin Spencer from his organizational leadership. As a practising attorney, there was no question of his “...knowledge and legal prowess.” However, in a once burgeoning “...Legal Practice,” he has foregone such practice for “...public office.” He had acquitted himself exceedingly well.


 To be continued...........


Hits: 2694

6 Comments In This Article   


Oh dear...

#6 JD » 2013-09-11 07:06

"Can't see the forest for the trees..."


RE: Provoking the Ire in Commissioner Browne - Part I

#5 mnopp » 2013-09-10 12:15

Harold Lovell, elections around the corner and we will judge you base on the performance of the economy. the fact that we lost 25% of GDP and the unemployment rate bordering around 22% should be cause for concern for your party. i am tired of the justice talk since the incompetence and thievery and corruption that existed under ALP is worst today under UPP



#4 CIROC » 2013-09-10 08:38

When you put lipstick on a pig.You get a jackass.I have ridden many jack** in my day in Antigua.


@ GoodJobBob

#3 Skyewill » 2013-09-10 07:44

your mama....just kidding! :D


Great work Mr. P

#2 Skyewill » 2013-09-10 07:41

That was awesome! Your best work in my opinion to date, can't wait for part 2, 3, 4 and 5. I would love to be this good someday.



RE: Provoking the Ire in Commissioner Browne - Part I

#1 GoodJobBob » 2013-09-10 04:22

What do you get when you put lipstick on a pig?

Sarah Palin.


Add comment

Mr. Rawlston Pompey

 Mr. Rawlston Pompey






Follow us on Facebook

Spotlight on Education

Previous Next
Govt to give Two Uniforms
Antigua St. John's - Minister of Education Dr Jacqui Quinn-Leandro has confirmed...  Read more

Latest Opinions by Rawlston Pompey


Android LogoDownload Caribarena's Android App Click To Download

Find us on Twitter!