A well-known attorney is suggesting that Public Service Vehicle (PSV) drivers and conductors planning a $15 million class-action lawsuit against Government over fines for wearing uniforms do not have a legal leg to stand on.
Arthur Holder, who is also Speaker of the House of Assembly, also believes the Magistrate’s Court ruling that sparked the reported legal action could soon be appealed by the Commissioner of Police.
Last Friday, attorney-at-law and former transport minister Michael Lashley QC was able to convince Magistrate Graveney Bannister to dismiss a case against PSV worker Andre Marlon Scott who had pleaded guilty to charges relating to not being appropriately dressed and not wearing the required PSV badge. The magistrate ruled that the law pertaining to attire was absent of specific descriptions.
However, Arthur told Barbados TODAY that his research shows no such legal loophole exists and he anticipates an appeal from the Crown within the allowable seven-day period.
“The Commissioner of Police is still within the time limit to appeal the decision of Magistrate Bannister. I think it will be appealed because I have [researched] all of the law as it relates to this matter,” he said.
Holder suggested that Bannister did not consider developments, which supersede 43 (i) (f) of the Road Traffic Act, that mandates all drivers be “suitably attired and wear boots, shoes or sandals and such other apparels as the Licensing Authority approves”.
In arguing for the case against his client to be dismissed, Lashley had told the court that at the time, PSV operators were permitted to wear grey polo shirts and Scott was wearing one when he was reported last year. The lawyer had also argued that the regulations spoke to attire “approved by the Barbados Licensing Authority” and not by the Transport Authority, and therefore the officer who reported Scott erred when he cited him for not wearing a Transport Authority-approved uniform.
However, Arthur pointed out that it was during Lashley’s tenure as Minister of Transport and Works, and through the carte blanche powers vested in the Chief Technical Officer, that notice was given of the uniform specifications for conductors and drivers.
“A notice came from the Ministry of Transport and Works, the parent ministry of the Licensing Authority, on March 1, 2015 . . . as to what constitutes the appropriate attire that must be worn by PSV conductors and drivers. That notice gave detail of the required attire to conform to Section 43 (f) of the Road Traffic Regulations under which this gentleman was charged. Therefore, attire has nothing to do with the Transport Authority at all,” Holder insisted.
“There is no lacuna in the law, there is no loophole, and the irony of it all is that it would be sad because Michael Lashley was the Minister of Transport and Works and an attorney-at-law. Is he saying that he allowed a notice to come from that ministry that is in conflict with Section 43, Sub-Section (f) of the Road Traffic Regulations? It would therefore be dramatic irony if he were trying to say that the notice is now invalid.”
Arthur also offered some free legal advice to the PSV workers who are mobilizing to recoup fines and seek compensation for prison sentences. He told them they had long missed the boat as it relates to appealing their convictions.
“If you are appealing a case in the Magistrates’ Court, you only have seven days to file that appeal. So, on what grounds are you going to come three or four years after the fact? The law is clear; ignorance of the law is no excuse. Are you now going to sue for wrong interpretation of the law? That is what the appeal process is for,” he stressed.
Barbados TODAY made several attempts to reach Lashley for comment but was unsuccessful.
“There is no lacuna in the law, there is no loophole, and the irony of it all is that it would be sad because MICHAEL LASHLEY was the Minister of Transport and Works and an ATTORNEY-AT-LAW Is he saying that HE allowed a notice to come from that ministry that is in CONFLICT with Section 43, Sub-Section (f) of the Road Traffic Regulations? It would therefore be dramatic irony if he were trying to say that the notice is now INVALID.”
As I said before….MICHAEL LASHLEY should now do the RIGHT THING and TAKE HIMSELF before the COURTS or the SAME drivers should take him to COURT for MISLEADING them THEN and NOW.
……..and Michael Lashley looks like YOU got the wrong HOLE… it in a LOOPHOLE as you may have thought ? ya mean to tell me that a big hard back man like you…a former MINISTER of the CROWN at that and a LAWYER with a LAW CERTIFICATE and a person of your age still doan know the RIGHT loopHOLE?
This attorney is also a joker. It is not the Policeman who erred in reporting the PSV driver.
The courts erred in interpretation the law. The Magistrate or Judge determines if the infraction as seen by the Policeman falls within the purvue of the intended regulations.
It is also questionable weather the punishment of incarcerating a driver for not paying a fine relating to not wearing a uniform is constitutional.
This attorney may have done his research as he stated but the research I have done shows there are grounds for appeal here.
I think a constitutional argument can be made against wrongful imprisonment in which case the statute of limitation would not be a factor.
There are grounds for appeal in this matter.
Just my opinion.
Was Lashley one of DEM attorneys that exhibited their law degree during the election and cause help draft the legislation for the dress code for the ZRs., but who would allow persons to were sandals instead of shoes or boots that would protect their feet in an environment like that? most of them do wear bath room slippers while conducting on the Vans, safety is not a #1 priority in the work places in barbados anyway. Then again Lashley may have an interest in the business. He and Gollop are now the attorneys of choice.
No wonder that Barbados find it so difficult to get a seat on the CCJ.
Arthur Holder just shut up and sit quiet in de speaker chair.
Holder, Lashley, and other Attorneys who hold political office are painted in the same colour. They all have different spectacles when in office, from when they’re out.
I’m sure Holder won’t see a loophole in anything now that will make the government pay out money, similarly Lashley would have see the escape route and left it for his return to practice triumphantly. Magistrate Banister, has caused a stir with some of his rulings, as Fredricks, Birch, Seale while acting, Ifill, and Greaves decades ago. Let’s await the appeal by the Commissioner of Police.
This legal loophole and the ruling of the magistrate is obviously under review now so for Holder to give his (opinion) before the dust from the law books settle is quite interesting. I have said, and I will repeat, “there are too many lawyers in our parliament, their services will better serve the people from their offices, and the courts.
One thing about having the B L P in office, we get much legal activity, lawyers make a solid living, because of their bullying style of governing.
If Holder was out here catching his royal arse like Lashley,he would be the one representing those PSV workers ,and all of this logic which he is spouting from his throne , would never be revealed to his clients.
As the comedian joked…., What do you call a bus load of lawyers going over a cliff. Answer A bloody good start.