From the Diaspora...RUSH TO JUDGMENT, AND THREE SIDES OF THE COIN

From the Diaspora…RUSH TO JUDGMENT, AND THREE SIDES OF THE COIN

Feb 23, 2014 News

By Ralph Seeram

In that classic movie Casablanca, whenever a crime was committed the police would ‘round up the usual suspects’. Back in the PNC days any murder that had some sort of political connection, the usual suspect was PPP supporter Arnold Rampersaud.
Today in Guyana when anything or everything goes wrong it’s the PPP’s fault. It does not matter if it’s not the fault of the government, somebody has to be blamed.
We now live in a society where we rush to judge without paying attention to the facts. To an extent the press is to be blamed for this. The standard of journalism is very poor in Guyana. To an extent I blame the editors that allow the stories that pass for news.
Apparently fairness and balance are not the purpose of news; they seem to be either pro-government or anti-government. Even crime stories and court cases are reported in a very unbalanced manner.
You read the same news item in Kaieteur news, Chronicle, Guyana Times and Stabroek News, and you get the impression that they are different stories, not one and the same. It is either there is an agenda behind the way the story is written or plain lazy journalism, or I should say lazy reporters.
Three items dominated the news this week, the five-year sentencing handed down to a babysitter, the disbarment of an Appellate Judge and the disbarment of a Berbice lawyer.
When I was in primary school, I had a trick of balancing a coin on its edge. The coin only balances on its edge because the weight is balanced on both sides of the coin. In terms of media that edge of the coin is the press, it is the duty of the press to carry a balanced story.
When I first read that the babysitter was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment for assaulting a baby, I thought the sentence was harsh. I was under the impression that it might have been a simple assault. The fact that it was a Magistrate’s child and the swiftness the case was disposed of raised concerns coupled with the fact that the babysitter claimed that she was assaulted by the parents.
So after the big outcry from some members of the Bar and civic minded people, the parents were forced to give their side of the story. The media failed to get the parents’ side of the issue from the inception. Now that we are hearing it, and if the medical report is to believed, the babysitter should be lucky she was not charged for attempted murder.
The report said the baby was choked and suffered blunt trauma.
“When I saw my innocent, fragile, defenseless baby that day, her left side eye was swollen with the skin around the eye discolored to shades of black, blue and purple. The left eye itself was red with blood all around. Her cheeks on both the left and right side had cuts and discolorations of black, blue and purple. And she was clearly in distress as she was crying uncontrollably,” said one parent.
EXAMINATION
Mr Joel Edmonds stated that he asked the babysitter once again what had transpired but the woman stuck to her story that the child fell.
They all went to St. Joseph Mercy Hospital for the child to be examined by a doctor. “The evidence which was observed were most certainly caused by blunt trauma and most certainly caused by strangulation (sic)”.
Now if the parents did not call a press conference we certainly would not have known that, the press failed to obtain the parents’ side in the first place.
I still have concern OVER the way the sentencing was carried out, whether her rights were violated, why there was not a pre sentencing report etc. Nevertheless, when you look at the blood shot eyes of that little baby in the picture, you would have little sympathy for the accused.
Remember the parents are the victims here. Then you had the case of the Appellate Judge who stepped down because he was disbarred in England. The judge had to contact this newspaper to give his side of the issue. Why was he not asked for his side of the story? It was well publicized.
His version is that he applied for the job before he had an issue in England. He never filed the brief that led to his disbarment; it was done by a Solicitor.
Those who are familiar with the English system would know that the Attorney has to “be instructed by the Solicitor”. He had resigned from the English Bar so how could he be disbarred from a bar of which he is not a member?
Further, the matter has not been fully ventilated in a Court of Law, and he is pursuing that option. The press did not contact him; he had to contact the press to give his side.
Now we come to the lawyer in Berbice who was disbarred in Canada, and the calls for him to stop practising in Guyana. Prominent in these matters is Chris Ram. I hope Chris Ram exercises the same vigor against some prominent lawyers in Guyana, whose wrongdoings have been exposed in the media.
By way of disclosure, the Attorney in question in Berbice is a close and personal friend of mine going back some 34 years. He was convicted in Canada for fraud, admitted his guilt served his time in prison, paid his debt to society in Canada, and then returned to Guyana to resume his practice.
His contention is that he did not commit any offence in Guyana, so why should he be penalized for something that Guyana has no jurisdiction over?
So what about forgiveness and second chances? There are more important things like Government Ministers looting the treasury of Guyana than an Attorney who is trying to get his life back on track. Chris Ram needs to refocus his energy.
Ralph Seeram can be reached at email: [email protected]