There is absolutely no doubt that Attorney General Dale Marshall has the best interest of Barbados at heart. But the road to hell is often paved with good intentions. While one is apt to compliment Prime Minister Mia Mottley for her forbearance with some of her colleagues, it would be somewhat disingenuous to suggest that Mr Marshall’s tenure as the Government’s chief legal officer has been stellar.
There have been a number of situations over the past two and a half decades where the Office of the Attorney General has been called into question. And on many of those occasions the St Joseph MP has been at the helm of the watch. Under the leadership of late Prime Minister Owen Arthur an attempt by the government to pass amendments to the Road Traffic Act through Parliament was hurriedly aborted after it was found that the legislation was fraught with error. Mr Marshall was Attorney General at the time. That legislation did not see the light of day until the Arthur Government had been defeated. Just before the 2008 general election a Bill was brought to Parliament in an attempt to appoint a number of acting public servants, in a clear breach of the Separation of Powers doctrine. A private member of the Bar Association saved the day on that occasion.
It is incumbent on the Fourth Estate to highlight these matters in the interest of preventing repetition. We are cognizant of Prime Minister Mottley’s stated dedication to the principal of accountability and are positive she would be the first to state that no one is beyond reproach. Miss Mottley has often made it pellucidly clear she will hold those under her command to the highest standard of performance. It is in this vein, that we ask: Have Barbadians been getting the best out of the Office of the Attorney General?
Recently, Justice Shona Griffith declared as unconstitutional an amendment to the Bail Act which had imposed a period of 24 months on accused before they could apply for bail if charged for murder, treason, high treason or an offence under the Firearms Act, Cap. 179. The introduction of that amendment had raised several eyebrows and deemed by many as a knee-jerk reaction to increased criminality in Barbados. It should be made abundantly clear that Justice Griffith’s decision does not mean the streets will suddenly be inundated with more murderers and gunmen than presently exist. What has occurred is that the discretion of the court to give bail for these matters once more stands. Government’s amendment had taken away that discretion. Persons charged for capital offences or gun-related crimes can still be remanded for more than 24 months. But Justice Griffith’s decision returns the discretion to the sitting judge as to whether bail should be granted after one day, one year, two years or not at all, taking each case on its own merit. One of the greatest principles of public law is that the discretion of the court should not be fettered.
But in a politically vapid response to the ruling, Mr Marshall noted: “I will say that our resolve will not fail or falter when it comes to keeping Barbados and Barbadians safe as we go about our daily lives, and we will take every lawful step to achieve this goal. Barbados belongs to all of us and we will never surrender our society and our well-being to the criminal element in this country.”
These were nice sounding words signifying nothing because they did not relate to the issue. But we appreciate Mr Marshall’s dilemma. As Attorney General under Prime Minister Owen Arthur, he would have endured an unprecedented spike in murders and gun-related violence up to 2008. As Attorney General under Prime Minister Mottley, he would have endured the highest murder rate in the history of Barbados up to 2021, with 89 murders between 2019 and 2020.
As Opposition shadow of the Office of Attorney General, Mr Marshall had called for his predecessor’s head on the basis of the crime situation in Barbados. Now faced with unprecedented crime numbers, Mr Marshall would seek to respond with platitudes about “not surrendering society”, and one-liners to Barbadians about “not to panic”. Justice Griffith ought to be complimented for righting a judicial wrong and reminding us that initiatives taken by Government must first comply with the laws of Barbados.
Over the past months we have seen too many instances that cannot sit well with those who respect the rule of law. We have had the appointment of a Deputy Commissioner of Police which had to be given legitimacy after the fact. The jury is still out on the Emergency Management (Amendment) Act 2020.
Almost two decades ago, the late jurist Sir Roy Marshall [no relation to the AG] submitted a Report of the National Commission on Law and Order to the Government. The report dealt not only with law and order but also a slew of social issues, with accompanying suggestions. The same issues which are today confronting the Office of the Attorney General. Back then Deputy Prime Minister and Attorney General Mottley, had worked assiduously and was the driving force in the consultation process. But she was shifted from the Office of the Attorney General and replaced by Mr Marshall. In 2004, as previously reported, a Cabinet paper was prepared with recommendations for the report’s implementation but alas that report never reached Cabinet.
Sir Roy publicly lamented the fact that the Report had been allowed to catch dust and nothing had been done which might have impacted on crime. Among his last public utterances was that the administration of justice in Barbados had deteriorated to a stage of embarrassment. Again, we ask: Have Barbadians been getting the best out of the Office of the Attorney General?
