[00:00:00] Speaker A: The best insight, instant feedback, accountability. The all new Talk Radio Freedom 106.5 as we start things off. Andisa, good morning to you my dear.
[00:00:12] Speaker B: Good morning.
[00:00:12] Speaker A: It's always good to have you back and you're here early. But yeah, bring the mic and move.
[00:00:16] Speaker B: Yes, yes.
[00:00:17] Speaker A: You realize that you go up, it could go down. Yeah. You're out of fight opportunity to see it move. It's only mine, you know.
[00:00:23] Speaker C: Yeah.
[00:00:23] Speaker A: So welcome to another edition of justice guys and these sides in the building, you can check us out. We're streaming on live online as
[email protected] and yeah, the scene Andissa and Davies in building. So the week was a good one for you.
[00:00:39] Speaker B: It was busy.
[00:00:40] Speaker A: Any police stations back and forth.
[00:00:41] Speaker B: Yes, for the most part. An court at least High court is closed but there's still a few matters and then March court.
[00:00:48] Speaker D: Well, good.
[00:00:49] Speaker A: So I want to tell you all a little, a little surprise something. Huh? I was able to communicate with Andisa this week during the week and they said returned my call.
[00:00:58] Speaker B: She spoke with me but I usually do. No, she doesn't like that.
[00:01:02] Speaker A: I got onto her. I'm like, wow, I had to mark this date. I think it was Thursday or was it Wednesday morning?
[00:01:08] Speaker B: I shared a status to my story saying on some days you wake up and you don't feel like talking at all. But you have the most social job in the world because people start calling you from six in the morning to find out things. And then you had to go to court, you have to talk. Then you had to talk to clients after on consultation. So like sometimes you just kind I just be maxed out of it. But I do respond to your call this devi for the most part
[00:01:33] Speaker E: if
[00:01:33] Speaker A: I had to do that on a morning poll question, it would be 5% respond, 95% waiting.
You know. But this week was a good one for her. She actually returned and I hope dear God, please next week for call her, let her respond.
[00:01:46] Speaker B: Lord God.
[00:01:46] Speaker A: And you know, it's funny enough, this particular call that she responded on was
[00:01:49] Speaker B: a money call, was business.
[00:01:52] Speaker A: It wasn't to discuss something else. I was literally sending a client away and she. I know why she's smell that honey.
So this morning folks, we did promise you guys last week is going to be open forum. Please be respectful. Remember that the information that we give you is generic.
[00:02:09] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:02:09] Speaker A: It's tailored towards your specific case. Generically. You need to still come in for your consults as the matter may seem similar to others. But we have to look at your case specifically and advise you. The Council will advise you on that. So please don't take what we say to heart and feel that is the end all and be all private consultations are needed. All right, let's take a call. Good morning.
[00:02:35] Speaker C: Good morning. Once more, Devi and a pleasant good morning, Anisa.
[00:02:38] Speaker B: Good morning.
[00:02:40] Speaker C: I have no opinion, I'm not giving an opinion, but I want to raise a discussion here that I think is of significance to the general public, locally and regionally and maybe internationally.
The Patten Morgan judgment, you will recall, that has become popular and in some cases unpopular.
Some would argue that countries like ours are bound to adhere to that precedent and others think otherwise. Others think that a sovereign state can go ahead and harm.
And there's a discussion that I would like you to explain to the public. And secondly, another precedent where we know when County Limited closed down in this country, well, cane farmers then had no business again because they had nobody to sell their sugar cane to. And what happened is that the European Union apparently gave some money to this country to assist farmers and so on that were not paid by the Manning government.
Some monies were paid. I think they were paid. Promised three transit by the Kamala Prasad government and they paid one. When Dr. Rowley came into office, Gerald Rambin, who was one of the attorneys, represented a few of the farmers went to court for those monies and they won the matter. And some farmers were paid, others weren't paid because they have to do letters of administration and so on. Should that go general to all cane farmers that this government should pay, or only those who went to court and won those matters? I thank you. Enjoy.
[00:04:24] Speaker B: Yes. So as it relates to the Pratt and Morgan decision, as I probably explained before, we follow precedent. So it's not just what is on the books, meaning in legislation, we also follow precedent. So if a court come and rule something, which is why even with the Hadid situation, even though everybody aren't allowed to pay an attorney to go to that length, the fact that they carry that matter and then we'll have judgments coming out of it, would set a precedent for everybody else as well. And it would help everybody because we follow precedent. So as it stands, our hierarchy is the High Court, the Court of Appeal, the Privy Council. Once the Privy Council makes a decision and.
And they decide something that is binding on all lower courts, you have to follow it essentially.
[00:05:13] Speaker A: And the county workers, he says those are sending letters and those if they should pay them alone or pay everybody.
[00:05:19] Speaker B: I think that if I'm not Certain what basis the persons who carried it to court got their money. But if that sets a precedent, essentially, or at least it shows what should occur in that situation, then everybody else should be entitled to it, I think, is more of a situation of who would be able to get the money, you know.
[00:05:39] Speaker A: Yeah. Because when you fight, when the union's fighting for. For wage negotiations in a company, everybody will protest. Yeah. When it's settled, everybody gets paid. Everybody has to be paid.
[00:05:50] Speaker B: Because it would be. Now, at this point, it would be not. The persons who were directly entitled to the money would not be their descendants, their children, their grandchildren. So I think it would just be a matter of figuring out who exactly should be entitled to it. And they should. If. If some persons went to court and they established that they should be giving
[00:06:08] Speaker A: you money, then it would be everybody.
[00:06:09] Speaker B: All right, it should be everybody.
[00:06:11] Speaker A: The thing we was talking about with the.
The. What is the.
What is the long thing again? One of the set squares, which is the triangle things.
The T square. So it's a T square, and the set squares. Thank you very much. Dexa did not remind me where the triangle thing was. I forgot. Good morning, Davian and Lisa. Can you tell me the difference. Can you tell us the difference between arrested and detained?
[00:06:34] Speaker B: That's kind of interchangeable. So you could be arrested and then after the. You could be arrested at the police station. You're detained, you're arrested. You're probably walking around the street. You do something, they arrest you. They detain you at a station, because they have to detain you somewhere. So, for instance, you might be detained at the best of street police station. You might be detained at the Belmont police station, and then, you know, they conduct their investigation and then they'll charge you.
[00:07:01] Speaker A: But arrested.
[00:07:04] Speaker B: An arrest doesn't. They don't need to have, like, actually hold you. If they tell you you're under arrest, that in itself is, you know, saying that.
[00:07:13] Speaker A: That could be that your freedom is suspended right now.
[00:07:17] Speaker B: Yeah, well. And all of that will come into play. Say, for instance, if you're trying to say that you were resisting arrest, you know, and they say, well, no, I never. I never, you know, resist. I. I allow you, whatever the case may be, the person. Just tell me. I underestimate. But if the police officer is saying you're under arrest and you're walking off, that could also possibly be considered resistant.
[00:07:35] Speaker A: Okay, so if you're. So they can arrest you on site for something that the person said. Yes, that is the man. And they arrest you, but then they Come. No, no, it's not him. And then they release you.
But you wasn't detained anywhere, you're just arrested. So there's a slight difference.
[00:07:51] Speaker B: So say, for instance, if you then go to take the state to court, because you're saying that your arrest was, it was some wrongful arrest or whatever the case may be, factors that the court will consider is the length of your detention, how long you were detained. So like with other situation where, you know, they just arrest you an hour before you even reach the decision, they let you go, you realize it's some issue, then that will factor into how much money you would possibly be entitled to. But if, on the other hand, they arrest you and they detain you at the station for seven days without charge and you're in this dirty cell and you weren't allowed to bathe and all these different things, then it'll obviously, you know, those things will factor into, you know, how long and how much money you could possibly be entitled to.
[00:08:31] Speaker A: All right, Miranda. Do we have Miranda rights in this country? You know, in the US you always hear you're being read your Miranda rights. Does that terminology exist in Trinidad and Tobago? And if so, what is it?
[00:08:45] Speaker B: We don't say Miranda rights, but they would say caution. So if you're reading a statement from the officers, they would say that they caution the person rule Rule seven, they would say the different accord, and I can remember from the judge's rules, right, but so they say they cautioned the individuals and they told them they have the right to remain silent. They told them the charge, etc. But they should, if somebody's being arrested, they should caution you, tell you that you're being arrested for whatever and tell you that you have the right to remain silent and you can have an attorney and all these different things. Sometimes it doesn't happen in practice, but every single time I read a statement from the police, they say, and we caution the person and we read them da, da, da, da, whatever the case,
[00:09:24] Speaker A: which they lie sometimes, they didn't really caution. So in Trinidad and Tobago, we don't have what is known as Miranda rights.
But it's similar, but it's caution. We use the word caution. Yeah, I don't like that caution.
I find something about that and sitting well in my head, I'm not a learn a legal mind.
[00:09:42] Speaker B: But what's not sitting right in your
[00:09:44] Speaker A: head, your caution man, is either so is I didn't tell me these are my rights.
[00:09:50] Speaker B: So when they say that if I
[00:09:52] Speaker A: tell you a caution, don't walk here, it could slip and fall.
[00:09:55] Speaker B: Yes. So they're not saying caution.
So they would say in a statement that they caution individuals. But when they say they caution you, they mean they told you what you're being arrested for and told you that you have the right to remain silent. So like what they would class as caution is the total person you are being arrested for possession of firearm and ammunition.
I'm telling you that you have the right to remain silent. And that's what they would fall. That would fall under the umbrella of caution.
[00:10:21] Speaker A: Then what is. Can you let me. I know I want to take a caller, but I have a next question for you. So let me take this call before asking my question. Hello? Good morning.
[00:10:29] Speaker E: Good morning, David.
[00:10:32] Speaker A: Yeah, we're going too quick
[00:10:35] Speaker D: applied.
[00:10:36] Speaker C: Is it under arrest or when you are detained? When it is applied.
[00:10:41] Speaker A: Okay. He's asking when does a pair of handcuffs come into play? When you're arrested or when you're detained? I think we just explained that when you're arrested. When you're arrested.
[00:10:49] Speaker B: But you don't need to be in handcuffs to be under arrest. As I said, if you post officer just say that you are under arrest. That is an arrest.
So it doesn't actually have to reach two handcuffs for you to, you know, features then say, okay, you're actually under. Yeah.
[00:11:01] Speaker A: Because I will share a secret with you guys. Many years ago, somewhere, maybe early 2000 bush thing was still 200 and I remember getting a ticket for 200 in bait. Sell that car and I get a bench warrant. The police come over by me. But the thankfully the warrant officer knew me and he's like, well, here what I'd execute this warrant. So here what you will do. I'm not gonna arrest you tonight and carry the station. Meet me at the court in the morning and I'll execute the bench I warrant on you. So when I got to the court that morning, I got this. He read the bench warrant to me and he said, well, sit here. I was not in handcuffs. He just. He had to sit here. So my. My movements were curtailed and suspended along with other people. And then I went in the court and the reading the reader this day drive on the bus shoot. How do you plead? Guilty.
You have the money to pay? Yes, and we pay the 200 and leave the court. So you don't necessarily have to be in handcuffs for those type of things. But I wanted to ask you what are the caution rights of citizens in this country when they're under arrest? What should be said to them by the arresting officer, they should inform you
[00:12:01] Speaker B: what you're under arrest.
[00:12:03] Speaker A: One, what else should be said tell
[00:12:05] Speaker B: you that you have the right to remain silent.
And they don't tell you that you have the right to an attorney. Sometimes they do, but the main thing that they do, they should inform you that what you're under arrest for and that you have the right to remain silent.
[00:12:19] Speaker A: So once they tell you you are under arrest for suspect of motor vehicle larceny or rape or whatever, and you have the right to remain silent, that's all, they don't need to tell you you have the right an attorney. They don't need to tell you nothing else. Legally not what they do tell you what they should. What they must see. That's what I'm trying to get. What must an officer arresting you tell you? What are somebody. What is the information you need? One, what you're arrested for. Two, you have the right to remain silent. What else? That's it.
[00:12:50] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:12:51] Speaker A: So once you tell you those two things, so you're not. You don't have to tell you that you have the right to an attorney. If you can't afford one, one would be provided for you.
[00:12:59] Speaker B: Well, one, yeah. I mean, one could be provided for you, but you don't have to say, nah, no, not just don't.
[00:13:05] Speaker A: All right, Trinidad and Tobago, we clear two things you're under arrest for. So and so.
[00:13:10] Speaker B: If they are, then if you are then carried back to the station and more than likely they're going to do an interview with you. At that point, they have to tell you that you could have an attorney sit in or someone else if you want your friend, mother, your sister, whoever, to sit in on the interview with you. Sometimes. Well, not sometimes. Once a person is arrested for serious offenses like murder, if the person does not have their own attorney, they would contact Legal Aid and Legal Aid would provide a duty counsel. If the person requested an attorney in whatever situation, they could contact Legal Aid and Legal aid would provide a duty counselor, which is essentially an attorney who would then be paid by Legal Aid to sit in on whatever interview or whatever the case may be. And as I always remind you, you have a right to remain silent even in the interview. So if the police officers come and they say, hey, I want to conduct an interview with you, you are not obligated to answer the questions that they ask you, you could say your no comment throughout that interview as well.
[00:14:05] Speaker A: And by you saying no comment doesn't mean that you're guilty of anything.
[00:14:08] Speaker B: No. And there shouldn't be any negative inferences that should be drawn to the person for exercising their right to remain silent. Because that's your right. You know, you don't have to. You're not obligated to. You know, in some situations, I might advise my client to give certain information. Say, for instance, if they are being accused of committing an offense and they have a very alibi at the point in time, they were in the states for two weeks. So there's no way that they possibly could have conducted that offense or committed that offense. Well, then, yeah, you let them know that, you know, on that day.
[00:14:42] Speaker D: I.
[00:14:43] Speaker B: Whatever. Xyz. But you're not obligated to say anything and no negative inferences should be drawn. Recently.
Recently.
That police officer actually probably hates me because what occurred is one of my clients, they rent vehicles. So they rented a vehicle and the vehicle was, I guess, using the commission of an offense, right?
So now the vehicle, you know, it crashed. So the vehicle is in the yard of the police station just, you know, rain, the glass broken. So inside that vehicle getting wet. So my client wanted to get the vehicle back. He has nothing to do with the offense, whatever.
At that point in time, it was like a week or more since the offense. So more than likely they already processed it. Because if you have it out in the yard, we already processed it.
[00:15:31] Speaker A: Right.
[00:15:32] Speaker B: So we contact them, ask them if you could get the vehicle back. One of the officers told us, yeah, tell your client to come into a wrecker because the vehicle can drive, whatever the case may be when he gets to the station. The officer said, no, you can't get it right. I say, all right, sure. I. I start off all the time by giving police leeway to do what they have to do. So I say, okay, sure, no problem. The next day I just called to get update why your client need an attorney and why did. So what. Why are you drawing this negative inference to somebody for having an attorney? So, you know, I must reaching the station, managing the station, I asked and I was like, what exactly are you trying to tell my client? Did a businessman have an attorney and you're trying to draw a negative inference from him having an attorney and for his attorney calling to find out what exactly is happening with his property that is at her station.
We went back and forth, back and forth. And then the next day she called my client and she said, come and get your car out of my station before you actually come back here and make her next scene. Because the whole thing about it is persons like to say, okay, if you don't say something, you might appear guilty, or if you have anything, you might appear guilty. You have a right to these things. And no negative inference, especially at least when you get to court, when you're no longer in a police station and the court isn't going to draw any negative inference for you remaining silent. So you should not.
Yeah.
[00:16:56] Speaker A: So the thing about it is, I'm happy that you shared that story and thank you very much for sharing it. When we look at that situation, why would the police officers push back against giving a citizen of this country their property when they have their rights? You know what? That. That was that.
[00:17:11] Speaker B: And my whole thing is I always start off by giving officers leeway to do their job because I understand that everybody have their part to pay within the system. Okay. So if you have to conduct your investigation, okay, sure. But you cannot tell me that Monona. We. I parked. I can't say the station, but I parked close to. I could have see the vehicle where I parked in the station, because it's out in the open. Anybody could go, you know, because it's out in the public. Yeah.
[00:17:38] Speaker A: I have an idea. So what, like St. Joseph?
[00:17:40] Speaker B: Nah, it's not St. Joseph.
[00:17:42] Speaker A: I could guess. I could guess. I have a few stations around.
[00:17:45] Speaker B: So my whole thing is. My whole thing was the vehicle has already been processed. So even if you need to show, you know, like if you arrest somebody later on, you need to show the. The vehicle, more than likely you're not going to carry the person outside into the station and show them the vehicles because they're not going to stand up in court one. I like you to use a picture where you have your number, the regimental number in the back so you could identify and say the person was shown this picture with this. It works better for you. So you can't tell me that you're still processing, you're not running no prints because it out in the open, you're not doing anything. So what exactly you need this vehicle for? And as I said, the vehicle crashed. So it was the only reason why he wanted the vehicle back at that point in time is because the glasses were broken and inside the vehicle getting wet, which then when he actually gets the vehicle back, it would then increase the money that he'd have to pay
[00:18:30] Speaker A: to fix it to refurbish. Yeah.
[00:18:31] Speaker B: So, you know, you just. And I simply just call for an update.
[00:18:34] Speaker A: This was on a senior level, meaning a senior.
[00:18:37] Speaker B: This is because when I first called the person who was in the charge and said that they can't.
So they say, I just pass you on to my. My boss, my senior, whatever the case may be. So now talking to the senior, right?
And then sergeant and then to tell me, first of all, she actually told me, council, I can't give you the information over the phone because I don't even know if you're an attorney.
[00:19:03] Speaker A: I said, no problems.
[00:19:05] Speaker B: No, but if you build a relationship like, you usually get the information over it because anyhow. So I was like, okay. I was like, I just want information. Whatever. Xyz and I feel you need to come to the station because I want to know why your client need an attorney. And I wanna go, okay, this is the quickest.
[00:19:26] Speaker A: Yeah, I was jumping in that can't reach. And then say, listen, you want to know why he needed an attorney? Let's make it simple. Give him his car. Oh, he can't get it. This is why he needs an attorney. That's all I know.
[00:19:37] Speaker B: It was the quickest.
[00:19:38] Speaker A: I wish I could have called that
[00:19:39] Speaker B: sergeant to that station. And I, I hope you know, no, I have nothing good relationships with.
[00:19:46] Speaker A: We're trying to keep it that way. We're gonna keep it that way.
[00:19:48] Speaker B: But don't.
Because sometimes. Sometimes the issue that you might have in this profession is being two things, intersections at play. You're young and you also are female. So certain things that they wouldn't do
[00:20:03] Speaker A: to a male attorney, the feeler could get away with.
[00:20:07] Speaker B: You could get away with you with a female attorney.
[00:20:09] Speaker A: But I will.
You will be.
[00:20:12] Speaker B: I'll go to the end of the
[00:20:13] Speaker A: age of my client and listen to me. Oh, yeah, call Andissa.
[00:20:17] Speaker E: Call.
[00:20:17] Speaker A: And she answered.
[00:20:19] Speaker D: Hello.
[00:20:19] Speaker A: Good morning. All right, call me back. Good morning. Good morning.
Hey, 625-2257. Somebody says, Sunday, legally, just. Oh, can anybody. Can the police officer just legally search your vehicle without any reason for the search?
[00:20:36] Speaker B: We're under soe.
[00:20:37] Speaker A: Currently under the soe. Yes. So we under soe so they can do it. Hello. Good morning.
[00:20:43] Speaker E: Good morning to Davy and good morning to the learned council.
[00:20:46] Speaker D: Good morning.
[00:20:47] Speaker E: I've been listening to your statement with respect to the question of what we call in the U.S. one's Miranda rights.
And I find it kind of arbitrary. Isn't there something like a judge's rule as to how this right is supposed to be applied to the suspect or the person detained? Because when someone is detained, it means immediately you deny that person the right of freedom of movement.
[00:21:15] Speaker A: Okay, Right, right.
[00:21:17] Speaker E: So. So what I want to know. I mean, shouldn't a police officer, like, walk around with a card that say, well, okay, I have to read this card to you accordingly. Judges rule that says X, Y, Z. Okay, I want to hear from you. All right.
[00:21:30] Speaker B: Yes. So we do have the judges rules and we also do have the TTPS standing orders. So the standard orders would dictate how police officers have to do everything as it relates to somebody who is under arrest. And so it talks about they should have pocket diaries where they make notes about what is done.
Most times the officers don't have a pocket diary to make notes. So like they would say that they just made note in a diary and it was sent, it was then put into the station diary. It talks about, you know, how to conduct identification parades, verification exercises. So we do have the judges rules and also the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service standard orders which outlines how officers should conduct certain things, especially as it relates to somebody who's under arrest. And then obviously when we get to court and you read through the statement and you realize certain things aren't done, then you start questioning the police officers in relation to that, you know, you know that this should be done. You know, let's say, for instance, if this identification parade, it's supposed to have persons who look the same, whatever the case may be, and these things weren't done, does the person know you would only do an identification parade if the victim doesn't know the accused?
[00:22:41] Speaker A: Right. What about, as you mentioned, ID parade? You know, sometimes they used to come and pick up people and say, communication. I was going to do an ID parade with you. Should citizens have a right to say no?
[00:22:50] Speaker E: Or.
[00:22:51] Speaker B: I mean, you could. It's. That's a voluntary thing. So if you don't want to do it, then yeah.
[00:22:56] Speaker A: Does this pay to come and do it?
[00:22:57] Speaker B: I'm not certain if they pay you, though.
[00:22:59] Speaker A: Well, then they will.
[00:22:59] Speaker B: I'm really not.
[00:23:00] Speaker A: I ain't even going for no mistaken identity.
You look like, is he.
[00:23:05] Speaker B: Because they would need to have persons who look similar to the person.
[00:23:08] Speaker A: I'm not going for no mistaken identity. Keep.
[00:23:10] Speaker B: But if the person does know the accused or the person who they allege committed the offense, and they would just do a verification exercise, which is where, you know, it might be a situation where they, you know, just carry the person to say, okay, point out that is the person I was talking to, they might keep the person in a car, a tinted police vehicle, and then drive them along so that the person doesn't see who is making the identification and then you verify. But if the person does not know who the person is and they need to conduct identification, parade, all that to say there are rules and guidelines that they have to follow and if it isn't, then obviously it will challenge the integrity or whatever investigation that they conducted and, and ultimately whether or not the charge could okay. Be helped.
[00:23:53] Speaker A: Hello, Good morning. Quickly please.
[00:23:56] Speaker E: Hello.
[00:23:57] Speaker A: Hello, Good morning.
[00:23:58] Speaker D: Morning.
[00:24:00] Speaker C: Yes, Davy.
Yeah, Quick question.
A word was just mentioned by me learned friend Eric Arbitrary. I'm going to pose a question to your guest now.
Could you explain to me the system for the selection of a judge for any particular matter what would make for example, Carrie V be selected as opposed to Davy, who makes the selection and what criteria does that person use? I'm asking in relation to the current imbuglio in the Caribbean Court of Justice without mentioning too much a thing, but.
[00:24:36] Speaker A: All right, cool. I think I'll get your point.
[00:24:38] Speaker B: All right.
[00:24:38] Speaker A: And she's not my guest.
By now all you should know, and Lisa is a co host on a Friday. So who makes the selections? In general, you know, you have at
[00:24:50] Speaker B: least the accused person or the person who's bringing a civil matter. You have no choice relative to who your judge is. That is because that's civil criminal as well. You should have no choice because it's supposed to be a. I'm not certain how the court makes a decision to assign judges to, to particular cases.
Recently I saw in criminal courts that they are doing a new redocketing exercise and you know, they separating it based on Sando matters and policeman matters. But you have no choice because then persons would select which judges that they think would have a favorable decision to them. But he mentioned the Caribbean Court of Justice and I did tell you that we had to talk about that because you guys know that I'm very passionate about it. Very passionate and very much in love with the Caribbean Court of Justice. So I was deeply disappointed to see the allegations that came out relative to saying that, you know, panels were being fixed and you know, it wasn't just general accusations relative to the Caribbean Court of Justice. This was allegedly, it was a story carried by Mark Besant. It was allegedly emails between the judges complaining about things that occurred relative to the president of the CCJ and then pinpointing particular cases, saying that certain things went wrong as it relates to those cases. So for a court that was already struggling to receive the support of jurisdictions that didn't already sign on to the appellate jurisdiction, I think that this new information, these new allegations which allegedly came from emails between the judges, would then push the CCJ even further back to gain the support of persons in the Caribbean, to be quite honest.
And it's so disappointed because I generally feel as though Justice Saunders, who was the past president of the ccj, did such an amazing job pushing the court and getting confidence up, going to different seminars, giving different talks, making the court accessible. As I said, when we transitioned for Covid, the CCJ was unaffected because they were already virtual at that point in time to accommodate for all the different jurisdiction and all those things to now see all the work that everybody has done to be questioned. Because I feel as though the allegations that were raised isn't something that could just easily be. Even if the current president steps up, stung and they do an audit and they do an investigation into the allegations.
I feel as though the allegations would follow the CCG for the rest of its life.
[00:27:31] Speaker A: And that is something that I think they should have never tainted the CCJ with these type of things because then you will start a question judgments coming out of the court of the Caribbean Court of Justice unjustly, you know, you would start, you would, they would want to say, well, listen, we can't trust this system.
And I think that they didn't. That wasn't a good thing, to be honest. You all had a.
[00:27:53] Speaker B: And I feel as though it was def. And it appears that arose because of the president putting forward a new dress code for the judges. So imagine all of this is coming out of the president putting forward a new dress code. And I personally feel as though, though in the past the court has solid decisions, they challenged boundaries, they were creating a Caribbean jurisprudence, in my opinion. They weren't afraid to disagree with the CCJ on points.
They were pushing forward. They were doing. We had amazing judges on the bench only for this to occur. That would then cause already reluctant jurisdictions to be even more reluctant to sign on to the original appellate jurisdiction of the ctj. I am completely embarrassed, completely annoyed by it.
[00:28:50] Speaker A: I am telling earlier, look out in a few years for West Chambers Western Associates.
I am telling you, she's going to be a force to reckon with her. I'm saying. Good morning, av. Tell me quickly.
[00:29:05] Speaker D: Pleasant morning to you again. Present morning to your guest, Ms. Alison West.
[00:29:13] Speaker A: Quick, go ahead, go ahead, Morales, quick.
[00:29:15] Speaker D: Any human being that doesn't have some form of bias? No. Normally when you're in, when you're in the position of like, like a judge or a magistrate or so, you have to give decisions guided on law and so on and based on the evidence from them. But deep down inside is there are very few of us, the majority of us as human, the Human thing. Right. Where we have some form of bias or something. We may have some form.
[00:29:41] Speaker A: All right, I think I get the point. I think I get the point. We really want to wrap it up.
[00:29:44] Speaker D: Maybe some experience we had in the past, and we allow that to a few percent to guide our judgment. Guide of our decision. Alyssa is off here, right?
[00:29:53] Speaker B: Yeah. So I feel as though we can get away from our human biases, but it.
I, I guess they expect the judges to be able to put their biases aside, often undergo rigorous training to be able to do so. I mean, some better than others, but I don't think that is something we could get away from. It's just that we expect that our judges who underwent significant legal training and then obviously they have continuous education to be able to put their biases aside and look at the matters objectively.
[00:30:25] Speaker A: Well, more than that, I have a.
[00:30:27] Speaker B: And if you think that they didn't, then you appeal.
[00:30:29] Speaker A: That's my point. So if you think you could appeal. But for me, I, I believe they follow the rule of law. And if the case, even if they feel that this person should be this and whatever based on the, the, the, the, the prosecutors lack.
[00:30:42] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:30:43] Speaker A: To. To provide a proper case, they would be left with no choice but to follow the rule of law. They're guided by that. So even if they're a personal.
[00:30:51] Speaker B: You know, that's not only that. I think not. I think I know that in our jurisdiction, we are built on precedent. So there's very few instances where it would be a novel situation for a judge. Every single situation, you can look back and see different cases, how that matter was dealt with. So even in the summing up that they would give to a jury at the end of a matter, they already have a guideline of if certain things happen, this is what you have to tell the jury.
[00:31:17] Speaker A: So then here's my question. Pat and Morgan was set.
[00:31:22] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:31:24] Speaker A: That is precedent. Before Pratt and Morgan, somebody set the precedent.
[00:31:27] Speaker D: Right.
[00:31:27] Speaker A: Somebody set it and that. That came up. Can we now set a new precedent where we override pattern Morgan at some stage and our next judge boldly set a precedent. And then we said, that is the latest president.
[00:31:38] Speaker B: We are only if the Privy Council, Amata. Was carried back up to them and they reconsider their position and they say, well, they have reconsidered and you know, they made errors and only then. But I have told you guys in the past, the CCJ has already disagreed with the line of reasoning in Pratt and Morgan.
[00:31:57] Speaker A: Beautiful.
[00:31:58] Speaker B: But we are not signed on to the Appellate jurisdiction of the ccj. So as the most that it could be to us would be persuasive authority. But the only person who could reverse that precedent that has been set is the Privy council itself. There's no higher court higher than the Privy council.
[00:32:12] Speaker A: This quickly is of course over 50
[00:32:15] Speaker D: calls I make but you're not answering.
[00:32:17] Speaker E: Six, two. Two.
[00:32:18] Speaker A: All right. Hello. Good morning.
[00:32:21] Speaker D: In our jurisdiction.
[00:32:23] Speaker E: Yeah.
[00:32:23] Speaker D: I want to say that so far 9 out of 10 I think our judgment perform well in that that area just have food for thought. That's the kind of question you know, mathematics is a subject you do in school at O level in order to kind of help it to reason and so on in order for you to have a particular level of reasoning. And induction helps you say intact because a lot of things they do they're not really using practical life afterwards.
And yet there are some people who do it and then they come out now and there's no reason according to the the the. The way I try to bring them to it, we try to you know, analyze cause them to analyze by doing this. So it comes like the same thing. So moving forward I just have food for thought. But I mean dealing with human you will have a few percentage.
[00:33:08] Speaker A: All right. I think we get the point Mariah.
[00:33:11] Speaker D: All right, cool.
[00:33:12] Speaker A: Hello, Good morning.
[00:33:13] Speaker E: Yeah David.
The judges and administrative speed so accurate. I also in present of them and this person online about me. I don't know what is say hello Mr. You want to do anything about us? Yes, I want to reverse this case this morning and bring up different person for that song. You go downstairs send the clock downstairs the clock just a piece. Make me do what I do and pull me back upstairs. The person said no, I can't face. You know he said if I answer to my court I can't face me. You'll face me in a time but you don't want to face me. So listen to me right now. I want a judge. Excuse a Cleveland. That's a wonderful boy. Yeah.
[00:33:51] Speaker C: All right.
[00:33:51] Speaker A: Thanks for sharing.
[00:33:52] Speaker E: Yeah. All right.
[00:33:53] Speaker A: Thanks for sharing your positive story. Hello, good morning.
[00:33:55] Speaker E: Quickly Caribbean Court of Appeal. Let me just say. Let me just say this one judge say that he has to wear his traditional weight.
[00:34:04] Speaker D: I say no.
[00:34:05] Speaker B: When in Rome.
[00:34:07] Speaker E: Do like the Romans too. Thank you.
[00:34:09] Speaker A: All right, Andy. Sir, this is where we wrap the show for this morning.
[00:34:14] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:34:15] Speaker A: And say thank you to our listeners. You have caught as usual.
[00:34:17] Speaker B: Yes.
[00:34:18] Speaker A: Good morning, guys.
Let me see this one quickly.
Tell me, can a police officer investigation be proven bias against an individual? What is most likely to happen in court. If during an interview, the voice, the officer directs his question towards the incident to prove the case he is investigating and not incidents prior, that will prove innocence of the detainee investigation, proven bias against an individual. What happens in a case like that if the officer is biased and is investigated?
[00:34:48] Speaker B: So during the interview, the officers generally put what evidence they have to the person. So if they have CCTV footage, they usually show it to the person. And sometimes when you sit into the interview sitting to hear what evidence that the officers have in a situation like that, well, let the officers do their investigation. But when you go to court, it will be up to your attorney to cross examine the complainants on the investigation that was conducted. So if you realize that certain things were done, it would then be up to your attorney to cross them and press them on why certain things were done, why you didn't follow up on certain leads, why you didn't do xyz, which would then be obviously the evidence in the matter as well. Whatever oral evidence that the person gives, then all of that will be considered to determine whether the person is innocent or guilty.
[00:35:30] Speaker A: Beautiful folks. We have to leave it there. Thank you very much Andissa and I wish you a safe and productive weekend and a week ahead.
The best insight, instant feedback, accountability, the all new Talk Radio Freedom 106.5.
