An Attorney-General must be shown and given respect by the Bench

Apr 05, 2017 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
I continue my discussion of the incident between Justice Holder and the Attorney-General. For legal reasons, (explanations of which a letter of this type is an inappropriate place to adumbrate) I would in a nutshell say that Judge Holder’s explanations for his excising that evidence are indefensible (reexamination should have been invited to clarify any uncertainty) and if such excising, as it appears, is what precipitated the so called “egregious statement” by the Attorney-General then, with respect, this is a case of contributory indiscretions of which a major proportion is to be borne by, or attributed to, the Hon Judge.
Suffice it to say that every cross examiner knows that follow up questions are based on the answer elicited and assumed recorded by the court, where the answer (in this matter the “yes” from the witness, crossed out by the judge) is relevant to the point of fact the cross examiner (that is the AG) was seeking to establish as part of his case. The more I read the newspaper extracts of the judges conduct, I dereliction in recording the evidence elicited by the AG’s cross examination, the more I am convinced that the beleaguered judge’s explanation as to crossing out the witness evidence, is indefensible. It is not that the judge thought that the evidence was hearsay or somehow otherwise plainly inadmissible.
I have the benefit of having presided as a magistrate for some twelve years. So, in this matter I can write both theoretically and experientially. A lawyer (now recently deceased) after I had ruled against him, I recall, as he was leaving the court, quite audibly blurted out “I gonmek he loose he wuk”. And that was a mild case of disrespect compared with what I endured (for political reason and otherwise) when I was the resident Magistrate on the Essequibo coast – 2005 to 2008). I never asked for any apology. I never sought self-vindication.
We all have different levels of judicial restraint and tolerance. We all have different idiosyncrasies. But if I had allowed those irksome moments to cause me to respond idiosyncratically, then, perhaps I was not temperamentally suited for judicial office.
The AG’s constitutional status and leadership or head of the Bar carries not only high responsibilities; it carries concomitantly, the right, and entitlement, to be respected by both Bench and Bar alike. That is the unwritten rule. And that is why in spite of all the centuries of advocacy by Attorney Generals throughout the Commonwealth Common Law jurisdictions there is no case (reported or unreported as far as I am aware) of an AG being charged with contempt; nor being compelled to issue some apology to a Judge. No precedent exists anywhere.
So, there must be some good character disposition that operates in the Attorney Generals favour when allegations of “disrespectful” conduct are made against him, even if made by a Judge. The AG had maintained that he had no intentions of disrespecting the Judge. Those of us before whom he has appeared frequently enough knows of his assertiveness, even (as he was them) as a Junior Counsel. Assertiveness in our Courts is not some vice; it is a virtue; a fortiori, as an Attorney General. It is plainly wrong for any punishment to be contemplated, much less meted out to him for any such assertiveness as a method of suppressing the method or conduct of his advocacy.
It is a matter of some considerable curiosity that at no time in the agony of the moments during the verbal exchanges between the AG and the Judge did the, word “contempt” or “out of order” emanate from the Judge’s mouth. Every judge immediately discerns contempt in the face of the Court when he hears one. It is almost self-evident. It requires no ex post facto cogitation or consideration. The subsequent contention of a contempt seems more an afterthought, than a conviction of a view of such an occurrence.
I must emphasize here the point of there being no prior reprimand or rebuke of the AG during the business session. The Guyana chronicle report under the caption “judge wants AG to apologise” (Wednesday march 29, 2017) also KN Captioned “Judge says AG disrespectful to him in Court” 2017-03-30, contains extracts from the Judge’s letter of complaint to the Chancellor, (ag) that in my considered view does not even tend to show a prima facie case of contempt, much less to be evidence from which the Judge can feel sure that the AG was guilty of the criminal offence of contempt in the face of the court, of which the particulars that would have to be supplied to the AG, must and could only be the words: “I could say what I want to say and when I want to say it, I have always been like that”; the so called “egregious statement”.
The first and most crucial aspect of this is the consideration that the AG is stating or intending to state a description or characteristic of himself. By what logic, or principle, can a description in ordinary English language of one’s self be a contempt of court, even more so, it is nonresponsive I have always thought that the law of criminal contempt (which in my tenure on the Bench I had studiously researched) requires that something be said or done in relation to the Judge suggesting corruption, dishonesty or lack of integrity on the part of the Judge. Are those words constituting the “egregious statement” reasonably capable of any such suggestion? Not at all!
Maxwell E. Edwards
Attorney-at-Law

---

---