The views and opinions expressed by the author(s) do not represent the official position of Barbados TODAY.
by Neil A. Marshall
The recent decision of the Government of Barbados to “settle out of court” a longstanding dispute between several senior police officers and the state has left many legal and political observers aghast.
As reported in the Saturday 18th December 2021 edition of the Saturday Sun newspaper, Solicitor General (SG) Donna Brathwaite, QC, told the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ): “We have decided to settle it out of court and that was the line we were trying to take rather than accept liability.”
With all due respect to the learned SG, what are you deciding to settle and liability for what? The matter has been already settled by the High Court of Barbados, which dismissed the Claimant officers case! If there was any dispute as to the rightness or wrongness of the High Court’s decision, it was laid to rest by the Court of Appeal when it said it found no merit in the officers’ case thereby affirming the decision of the High Court of Barbados!
There are ORDERS of the High Court of Barbados and the Court of Appeal of Barbados to that effect. How does the learned SG propose to change those Orders now that the jurisdiction of those two courts is functus without appealing those Orders to a superior court? The Appellant officers took their grievance to the final Court of Appeal for Barbados, the CCJ, where, before arguments could be made by either side, the Government of Barbados took the most bizarre position of a Respondent and stated: “We have decided to settle it out of court” and “That was the line we were trying to take rather than accept liability.”
What was even more bizarre was that counsel for the officers and the Crown sought to have the terms of their “agreement” sanctified with an Order of the CCJ as if the matter were adjudicated or had any jurisprudential value.
The CCJ quite rightly rebuffed, or to those of us trained in law in Trinidad – “buffed” – any such effort by baulking at the suggestion with the retort: “What jurisprudence?”, “There is no hearing.
There has been no reason to judge and the parties are seeking to settle the matter out of court, so I am not quite sure what the jurisprudential value of the phraseology will be.”
Without heaping scorn on what had occurred, the CCJ took the very diplomatic and less embarrassing position by suggesting to the parties to agree on a Draft Order but in the manner of a code stated: “If it becomes necessary for us to reconvene, we will let you know when that will be in the new year.” That statement sounded like: “Don’t call us, we’ll call you.
You not dragging us into your mess of deals and secret settlements.”
The Government of Barbados has apparently made several brazen statements as to how it views and feels about justice in Barbados. It has seemingly said: “To hell with the decision of the High Court of Barbados and the judge who made it!”
To hell with the decision of the Court of Appeal of Barbados and the three judges who made it, most notably the then learned Chief Justice of Barbados!
To hell with the CCJ, we make not only the policy decisions around here, but we also make the judicial ones!
This saga must stink in the nostrils of all Barbadians and to add insult to injury, the government then declared that the financial terms of the “agreement” between the parties are to be kept secret.
In an environment like this, who the hell needs police for law and order or judges to determine matters? To hell with all of them! It seems that this regime is the sole repository of law, order, and justice in Barbados.
This article could have been titled “To Hell and Back” but on the current path of this regime, that offers too much hope. If they are seemingly so hell-bent on taking us “To Hell in a Handbasket” we might as well make it profitable while going there
This column was submitted as a letter to the editor.
Neil A. Marshall Attorney-at-Law Concerned Citizen and Social Commentator
