You are hereCreate Content / "Shafted"
"Shafted"
The issues
There are four issues before the Board as follows:
- Was the JLSC acting ultra vires in preferring the charges?
- Was the JLSC acting unfairly and/or contrary to the rules of natural justice in preferring the charges?
- Are the charges unsustainable in fact and law?
- Was the JLSC’s conduct of the disciplinary process fundamentally unfair?
The substance of the original allegation against the appellant [Shermie] was, …/ …that he refused to allow himself to be cross-examined. In the context of proceedings in which witness statements were tendered to the court in committal proceedings and admitted unless the defendant [Sharma] wished to cross-examine a particular witness, there is no distinction between a person who refuses to be cross-examined and a person who refuses to testify. The whole purpose of the appellant’s attendance on 5 March, as everyone knew, was to allow him to be cross-examined on behalf of the Chief Justice. The original allegation was that he refused to be cross-examined. He admits that he refused to testify. That admission is in substance an admission that he refused to allow himself to be cross-examined. Put another way, the allegation that he refused to allow himself to be cross-examined is in substance the same as an allegation that he refused to testify.
the appellant has a case to answer, first that he was guilty of misconduct in informing Mr Peterson as prosecutor that he would not give evidence and, secondly, that that misconduct was causative of the criminal proceedings against the Chief Justice being brought to an end.
For the reasons given above all the grounds of appeal fail. The JLSC did not act ultra vires, the appellant was not treated in any relevant respect unfairly and the Board has every confidence that the disciplinary proceedings before an appropriate tribunal will be fair. The appellant has a case to answer but what decision the tribunal reaches will be a matter for it and not the Board. It follows that the appeal must be dismissed. Unless application is made to the contrary within 28 days of 17 February 2010 (in which case the issue will be determined on the basis of written submissions) the appellant must pay the JLSC’s costs of this appeal.
- 588 reads
There are significant issues arising out of this judgment, that may not at first be realised.
It's interesting and rather comical how Shermie attempted to play dee usual Dongkey Rock word games - yuh know, 'refused to testify' and 'refused to be cross-examined'. Well boy, I glad dee Law Lords deal wid 'im like he deserve. English diplomacy actually translates to Dongkey Rock rough and tumble of 'Doh play dee ass wid wee!'
Note carefully that Shermies case to answer i.e. that of misconduct - is linked to criminal proceedings against the Chief Justice being brought to an end - a premature end! Leh we arks we self a few questions nah. Like what dee ass wouldah come out if such proceedings had continued?
Eh heh? Now allyuh scratchin' allyuh head.
...this is so true and endemic in "Trini legal mentality"...playing word games till it comes back to bite dem in the behind...!
...in the instant case, Shermie refuses to be "cross examined" and as such, it takes the Law Lords to translate that to be that he refused to "testify" on the allegations he made...!
...and to the contrary, in the UdeCOTT case, the Lawyers for UdeCOTT refused to "cross-examine" Khan, the former husband of Sherrine Hart on his Affadavit and testimony which he filed with the Uff Commission, although he was willing and available to be cross-examined, on the "basis" that "they believed that his evidence and testimony was not credible" and worthy of being put to the "test" in an open court and as such, they gave no merit to his evidence...???
...what Poppycock...???...in Shermie's case, he was afraid to be put to the test in an open court to answer to his allegations, afraid as to what the "real truth" would be forced out of him in such an exercise...???
...and in the UdeCOTT and Khan's testimony, the lawyers were also afraid as to what other "truths" would be exposed in their "cross-examination" of Khan's testimony in an open court...???
...in contrast, Shermie's "allegations"...and failure to be cross examined (testify) places great doubts and questions as to the credibility of his "allegations"...while in the UdeCOTT, Calder Hart and Khan's affadavit and evidence, the refusal of the UdeCOTT's Lawyers to cross-examine Khan and his affdavit filed only helps to "validate" his evidence in the absence of taking the available opportunity to fully test it in an open court by Udecott's lawyers...???
...it all seems like just a true Trini mental legal mindset...that is a morbid fear of the real truth...they can make lots of "allegations" yes, but when it's time to put up or shut up...well, they just plain shut up...and keep on getting "bite on the behind"...???
...like they say..."so much for the court jesters...lawyers often do say the darndest things, yes"...!...go figure...???
...goodluck...trini t.o.o