A former Attorney-General must know about legal, semantic distinctions

Jul 09, 2017 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
Mohabir A. Nandlall must be the only (former) Attorney General in any Common Law (English speaking) jurisdiction who would misidentify and consider, “Commonwealth Law Reports” (abbreviated citation – CLR) and “Law Reports of the Commonwealth” (abbreviated citation – LRC (const) or LRC (Crim) etc as “one and the same” I refer to his letter in KN, Wednesday June 05, 2017 under caption “As a Parliamentarian I condemn the police’s wastage of money”.
I worked at the Attorney General’s chambers. Dr. Mohammed Shahabbuddeen, SC was then Attorney General. As a State Counsel (1984 – 85, 87) he would have been disgusted (to put it mildly, and certainly not amused) if one of us State Counsel/Parliamentary Counsels were to say that Commonwealth Law Reports, and, Law Reports of the Commonwealth, are differences in “semantics”, and that they are “one and the same”.
Editor, the brutal, stark reality is that those two set of law reports are NOT one and the same, they have nothing in common, and are so different in their respective contents, identities and publication as the Country of the United Kingdom is, from the Country of Australia. But like Rip-Van-winkle, it now appears that Mr. Nandlall has awakened and realizes (perhaps it is more a case of having been edified) the LRC and CLR are not “one and the same”.
Yet, with an accustomed degree of pedantry, he accuses his educator of having “joined the masquerade”. He argues that his misrepresentation of LRC as CLR is but some “minor and clerical misdescription” (SN Friday July 7, 2017, under caption “A minor clerical misdescription appears in the Court Order”). Well, misrepresenting/misdescribing LRC as CLR is not minor; it is not some clerical error; and this “masquerade” band has only one person: Mohabir Anil Nandlall; and his bad-cow with which he dances, is his bad conservatory order (CO).
If asking for a conservatory order in respect of “Commonwealth Law Reports” and obtaining such an order is in the circumstances of this matter a minor clerical misdescription, then I dare him to approach the Judge to have her Order varied or amended to read “Law Reports of the Commonwealth” applying the rule or principle of judicial recall of orders. Wesley Kirton may have been right (“He needs a subscription to dictionaries not law books”, KN, Wednesday June 14, 2017). His protestations in the press are of no avail; they do not amount to or constitute amendments or variations; or clarifications of the CO. the Judge in this matter made no “slip”, she granted what was prayed for.
So, this brings me to, Mr. Nandlall’s threats or warning against SOCU of “contempt of court proceedings, constitutional actions and appropriate private criminal charges…” were it to execute that infamously forewarned Search Warrant which speaks to, and authorizes the seizure of (quoting him) “14 Law reports of the Commonwealth”. His warning is hollow, meaningless and misconceived, and are like Shakespeare’s “tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”. Nandlall (and I daresay the Honourable Judge) cannot expect SOCU’s officers in their investigatory role, and who has NEVER SEEN the 14 LRC, to know with certainty and specificity, what on the face of this CO (bald and barren and plainly bad for uncertainty and want of particularity) they are THEREBY prohibited from seizing from Nandlall.
The laws of contempt of court requires that any potential contemnor (with peril of imprisonment for disobedience – contempt of court) be told and notified with sufficient particularity and certainty what acts he/she is prohibited from doing and in this matter, the description of the property protected by the CO from seizure. Does Nandlall’s CO pass this test? NO.
I end with this: by his sleight of pen he cannot convert the speaking words of the CO Viz; “Commonwealth Law Reports” into “Law Reports of the Commonwealth”. The mischief of his bad CO cannot be cured by his rantings in the press. So, if the Search Warrant granted to SOCU speaks with sufficient particularity to those 14Law Reports of the Commonwealth, they being the goods of which Mr. Nandlall is suspected, and accused of having stolen as a bailee by license, and so, appropriately to be tendered as exhibits in proof of the Government’s case, I submit unreservedly, that the law is 100% in SOCU favour if, it is intending to execute that Search Warrant.
Evidence of having found the 14 LRC at the defendant Nandlall premises is, and would be strong evidence in proof of the prosecution’s case, of that element of the offence (of Larceny by bailee what lawyers knows as the actus reus i.e. the physical act) which in this case was the removal of the said 14 LRC from his employer’s premises (i.e. the Ministry of Legal Affairs/ AGs Chambers) and a refusal to have returned them upon request.
Maxwell E. Edwards
Attorney-at-Law

---

---