INCREASE IN FINES

[00:00:01] Speaker A: The best insight, instant feedback, accountability. The all new Talk Radio Freedom 106.5. It is now time to get into justice. And Andissa, good morning to you. [00:00:14] Speaker B: Good morning. [00:00:15] Speaker A: Andisa caught this morning? [00:00:16] Speaker B: I do, actually. So this year started off so. I don't know what to say. I started off the year the virus. [00:00:23] Speaker A: Oh. [00:00:23] Speaker B: And it still had caught. So from the very first day we had caught, as a matter of fact, from the very first day we had a trial for manslaughter. So quite literally every day since the year started it has been pace. But I mean, I like it. I like it. [00:00:37] Speaker A: All right, cool. So this morning inside justice we, we revisiting some of these things on the fines now when we talking fines now for me, Andissa, I don't have a problem with traffic fines, you know. Yeah, you're doubling down on it. You know, I cool with that. You know, here's where I had a problem. You see that licensing division thing with your license coming in and you have it to pay that 650. I may not have a problem with that either. But you can't tell me that persons trying to get to go online and because you had to go online, you can't walk in license office and those fees, you can't tell me that we're trying to log in to get a date and we're not getting the date. The date is being pushed back past my expiration date on my license and then you're penalizing me for it. [00:01:21] Speaker B: Yeah. Because I I'll pass Karoni to get to work every morning. And I remember when they announced that the fees were going to increase and persons would receive fees for certain things. There was so much traffic in Karuni that day because I guess everybody was flocking to licensing office to get things done. So. And there's still trucks lying straight down Coronia every morning. So I guess there will be a large influx of persons trying to ensure that they are in order. And that's sometimes our issue with having the policies and the implementation of these policies because I feel as though they could have had the foresight to know that persons would be trying to go and renew and or at least already because I remember when I tried to renew my license, it was the same thing you, you got a date later down. And I believe they were saying I we end up going to licensing in point 14 or something like that because that's where the opening was. So it isn't as though only because the fine increase, you can't get a date that existed before. So you would have expected that you probably would have worked the kings, especially since persons would not be penalized for not having it done and they are trying to get it done and not able to do so. So that's generally, I think an issue in Trinidad that we have with we have any policies or we put in forward these plans and not necessarily thinking through the implementation of it, you know. [00:02:45] Speaker A: So then what do you recommend or think that should be done for justice in Trinidad and Tobago as it relates to persons with these punitive measures being put in place from a government standpoint on with your learned ability, what should have been practical for government before instituting. Instituting or you know, making it mandatory, these punitive measures, at least letting persons. [00:03:06] Speaker B: Know beforehand and giving like a period so that persons can get their house in order at the very least. [00:03:11] Speaker A: A period for what? [00:03:13] Speaker B: Because in this case you're saying that some person would be penalized for having an expired license, as you may say, for an example. And you're trying to go on the system online to make an appointment because you have to make an appointment to renew, renew your license in any of the licensing offices and you only have. [00:03:28] Speaker A: You can only do it within a 30 day period of the expiration date. Yeah, leading up to the expiration date. [00:03:33] Speaker B: Yeah. And I mean it isn't just a situation where somebody was driving without a license. Some persons probably wasn't just driving for that period of time. So that's why their license probably wasn't renewed within it. So I guess it was mentioned, they said in the budget discussion, but I. [00:03:51] Speaker A: Guess it wasn't debated. [00:03:52] Speaker B: It wasn't and it was not debated. But even beyond that, just a little consultation, a little notice letting persons know, you know, like sometimes they would say by January 1, 2026, this is going to come into effect. You know, I mean we kind of, it kind of came like a night. [00:04:11] Speaker A: Like a section 34. My phones are buzzing. Good morning, we on justice this morning. Hello. [00:04:16] Speaker C: A pleasant good morning. Devi. A pleasant good morning is Mandisa Andisa Sir. Andy Sir. [00:04:21] Speaker D: All right. [00:04:21] Speaker C: I ain't got father, but all right. Pleasant good morning and happy New Year to you. I don't know if I talk to you for the year, David. I just want to have a brief comment on the, on the financial tip because both of you were engaged in the discussion when I understand the point you were making and you are right. However, when you're borrowing money, what you are actually doing is buying time. So sometimes it costs you, but it is convenient because you need the money at the same time. So the savings and whatever additional cost and so on is the price for the time that makes it convenient and that you can get your business done. So that is my addition to that. Devi, you will recall when Antonio was in the program I had raised the issue with regard to those new type of motorbikes. You have two wheels, you have some three wheel tricycles that is motored and I understand you have a few four. They are not licensed on the road and my suggestion and my recommendation is that there be some form of license for it. I raised it this morning because I want to get the comment of ANBISA on this issue. Maybe I'm going to call the minister whether he will answer or not. But I am going to raise that issue because it can be very dangerous on the road. If some one of those persons bonks you, what is going to happen? Or if they are killed on the road, what is going to happen? I thank you. Enjoy. [00:05:40] Speaker A: All right. He did raise the issue when we had the car care segment on Wednesday. But I, I, I think we'll have to get somebody from licensing division or shed some insight into legislation as to what constitutes a road vehicle. Yeah, I think it starts to do with the cc's on the engine and things like that. And things like that. Not a motorized scooter. [00:06:04] Speaker B: Yeah. Even though we are seeing somebody motorized score scooters on your own. [00:06:09] Speaker A: But there was one with a pedal so if the motor gives out you could pedal like a bike. Now I'm seeing that too. So I don't know if that's the reason why. Ella, Good morning. [00:06:18] Speaker E: Good morning. [00:06:19] Speaker A: Good morning. Welcome to justice. [00:06:21] Speaker E: Good morning. Welcome to. Thank you and thank you for being here. Since he says being here and I know the legislation has received the parliament yet, but since County Central has openly daughter other things. I just want to touch on a couple of things here. Question does an individual in Trinidad and Tobago have the right not to incriminate himself? Question 2. If a policeman asked me my name and I told him that my name was John Thomas, who was there to hear that? It's just between him and I. So therefore I could get a year in prison for telling him that my name is John Thomas? The same thing with an address. And the other question I want to ask you is this Is it possible that a country could run where the constitutional rights of me who is living in a Zozo and the constitutional rights of someone else who is living in a non Zozo are different? Should we all be treated Equally before the law. I listen to your comments. [00:07:26] Speaker A: That's some very good questions. [00:07:27] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:07:28] Speaker A: And, and you are constitutional expert in my opinion. You well versed in that. [00:07:32] Speaker B: Yeah. Well the first question, if someone doesn't have to incriminate themselves, so that's why accused persons have the right to remain silent. A person could do an entire trial and say absolutely nothing. They don't have to go into the box to give evidence. Based on the situation, we would advise someone if they need to give evidence to put forward a case. So for instance, if you're relying on self defense, you would want to go into the box to explain what was happening at the point in time. Or if you're relying on provocation, you would want to go in your box and explain, well, this is the history between this person, on this night, this person came with a cutlash towards me, etc. Etc. But generally a person have the right to remain silent and you could go through your entire trial and say absolutely nothing. You, you, you can't incriminate yourself. Essentially. These hotspots zone, I think is such an interesting development if you're being quite honest. But the constitution does put things in place for the government to make decisions on behalf of the country. And if they go in parliament and they get the requisite majority, to note is that this government has a special majority, to be quite honest, they have more than enough seats to put forward those things. Obviously the fight would be in the upper house when of course we have the independence independent senators and the government senators who would also have to be on board to get the requisite majority. But the constitution allows for this to happen. So when you're deciding who you want to vote for, those are things you have to consider because this person now have the mandate, has the mandate to make decisions on your behalf. And if you give this person the money to make decisions on your behalf and this is what they decide to do and they have the majority where you're complaining done. I mean we still want persons to voice their opinions because I'm generally of the opinion even though you need to vote here or there, you should still be able to criticize or give opinions to that same party, regardless of how strongly you support that party. I am not the person who believe that you should just continuously blindly support any political party. You could disagree because you disagree with persons within your family even though you love them to death and you continue on on the next day. So you don't necessarily have to agree with every single thing that they do. But at the end of the day, you have to recognize that if this is the government that you gave the mandates to make decisions on behalf of the country, and the Constitution allows these persons to make decisions once they receive the requisite majorities in the lower and. [00:09:58] Speaker A: The upper house, then it's a done deal. But when it comes to constitutional rights, he talked about one community, constitutional rights being infringed upon. Infringed upon, while another has, you know, a sense of freedom. What, what are your thoughts? [00:10:13] Speaker B: So it, I think it would, I want to see how exactly they intend to implement that particular. [00:10:20] Speaker A: The mimic in Jamaica. [00:10:21] Speaker B: Yes, I will. I'm under the impression that they would in fact mimic Jamaica, but it would essentially be that some just under the SOE where the rights are suspended. So it kind of be a situation like that where some, some areas it wouldn't be. I remember during the soe, some places had a curfew, whereas some did not. So it kind of would be the way to etch it out in a situation like that. So it wouldn't al together be wrong. I want to see how exactly they intend to implement it, to see how exactly we could scrutinize it. Or if, you know, obviously there are attorneys, they are vigilant, who would quite quickly deal with it. [00:10:59] Speaker A: Because if you impose a 72 hour curfew in a particular area, let's say enterprise, and you single out a particular area in enterprise and you launch a 72 hour curfew on them, you have persons working, coming in later hours, or even leaving very early hours to get to work. So if your curfew suspends or ends at five in the morning, but starts at eight at night, you have persons coming in from casinos, persons going to work, you have persons in different security agencies traveling from long distances. I myself, at some mornings, depending on the, on the morning, I would have to leave home 30, 35 minutes earlier. So like this morning was one where I had to leave. I started traveling, moving around out of the house on the roadway from about 4:27 this morning. All right. And then there are some mornings I would just leave at 5. [00:11:50] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:11:50] Speaker A: You know, so circumstances change. And if you suspend the rights of persons in communities, you are infringing on the constitutional right because of, because they live in a community perceived to be a hot zone. [00:12:02] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:12:02] Speaker A: There's no fault of theirs. This is where they live. [00:12:04] Speaker B: Yeah. And just to add to the conversation, which is why I said I can't wait to see how exactly they intend to bring it forward. Because even in Trinidad and Tobago, our Constitution allows for special acts which which are act which would expressly declare at the beginning that this infringes on certain rights of the individuals within it. But they're doing it because it is for the better good of the country quite essentially. But even in that process and even in process where they pass regular pieces of legislation, it isn't a situation where the parliament could just go pass legislation and that is it. The court could still review it and figure and to determine whether or not its balances against the good that they are trying to do, whether it is necessary. So there would still be that discussion as well if you infringe the right. And I mean our constitution allows for special acts and our constitution allows for the suspension of rights under SOEs and things to that effect. But the court and society generally should still have would still have to scrutinize it to figure out whether the measure they are implementing, I. E. These hotspot zones would achieve the good that they are trying to do. That's the thing which is the reduction of crime. So they would still have that balancing act that they would have to do. So I can't wait to see what the discussion would be in parliament. I can't wait to see how exactly they intend to implement it because to be quite honest I think it is an extreme measure. [00:13:34] Speaker A: I think it is and, and it's one that I mean I think it's being rushed to get done. Good morning caller. All right, call me back 6252257 sorry about that. And this was winding up 627-3223 somebody say oh gosh tell and this I said good morning so Andisa good morning. [00:13:54] Speaker B: Good morning. [00:13:55] Speaker A: All right, so message delivered. All right. Hello, good morning. [00:13:58] Speaker D: Morning. Just point out one thing from your constitutional person. You're not coming across clear your constitutional person on your host this morning and. [00:14:10] Speaker A: Yeah and is the co host on on Fridays Ry this is Rudy is. [00:14:17] Speaker D: It Couple days ago Davy had the police a party from the police service who spoke about Friday corrections of officers etc. My question to you is what is the tribunal for the Correction or professional misconduct of Judges of the Supreme Court? [00:14:37] Speaker A: All right, thank you. [00:14:38] Speaker B: We have Judicial Legal Service Commission. So generally in Trinidad and Tobago in the Commonwealth Caribbean one of the tenants or one of the pillars that we try to uphold hold is the independence of the judges. So they want an independent impartial body who would be in charge of firstly hiring these judges. Firing. Well firing if it comes to that generally they go straight until retirement and you shouldn't fire a judge for cause. They don't necessarily want them to feel as though their job is at risk at any point in time and also for the discipline of them. So it's usually the Legal Service Commission who does that, who does everything in relation to judges. So it shouldn't be any external body, especially anybody who is in the political arena, that would have a say on disciplining these judges. And the reason for that is that you don't want them to feel as though if they are adjudicating over a decision that involves a politician or involves anything like that. So if they give an unfavorable decision that they will then face some kind of disciplinary proceedings and their job would be at risk and things like that. [00:15:52] Speaker A: But why does that happen though? Why if they make a. A decision that can be seen as extrajudicial, so to speak, why they can't be reprimanded if they, if they handed down a judgment that has been appealed and the their judgment overturned rather than being upheld? [00:16:07] Speaker B: No. Well, I mean if their judgment is overturned, that's just part of our legal proceedings. That's fine. If so we have the trial court. If you aren't satisfied with that decision and you want to challenge the decision of the court and you could challenge decision the decision of the court based on the law, you said that they didn't apply the law correctly. Or the facts. You said that they didn't apply the facts correctly. It's generally harder to overturn decisions or facts. But still you go to the Court of Appeal, the Court of Appeal could overturn a decision and you could then appeal that and go to the Privy Council. So that's just part of our legal, legal framework procedure. Yeah. I don't feel as though we should penalize a judge for giving a decision because of that, unless it is wholly unacceptable. And then I guess they would have their own internal mechanisms to deal with that. But at the end of the day, what judges do Judges interpret the law. So sometimes you could have an interpretation of something and they have an inter. You and I have a different interpretation of it. That's just part of it. [00:17:07] Speaker A: Then how do we get justice if. If interpretation is subjected to persons who are one. I mean, we're not perfect. [00:17:14] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:17:14] Speaker A: We are imperfect humans and we have to subject ourselves to a judge who might interpret this thing differently and have me under a custodial sentence for many years when another judge may not have seen it that way or we interpret it different. Why are we subjecting ourselves to interpretation of law rather than the actual rule of law, right? [00:17:32] Speaker B: No. Well, you're putting forward several different tenants there. So the first thing is that we have separation of powers. Parliament makes law. The judiciary just applies the law. They can't just come into court and decide that. I'm just going to interpret it in this particular way. Usually the attorneys of both sides would have to put forward legal arguments and we are based on precedent. So you'd have to put forward cases. It could be cases from Trinidad and Tobago that was already decided, that has the same facts. It could be cases from the Commonwealth Caribbean or internationally as well. Internationally. It would bore me persuasive. But you would have to show, well, hey, the courts have decided this case with this similar facts like this before. So you can't just come up one day and decide, I'm going to interpret the law in this particular way. It's usually based on some legal arguments and precedents. [00:18:19] Speaker A: But then how does precedents get established? Not because somebody did it once. So then how do we start on. My thing is, right, Pratt and Morgan using that, for example. Pratt and Morgan was a precedent set. I think it was Jamaica, right? That was a precedent set before. That wasn't there. But one person decided to set this precedent and do this. I'm saying, what if we set a new president? [00:18:40] Speaker B: Well, that could happen. So. No, no, let me not say that could happen. Just generally like that. What happens is you just said that we have all the appeals. So usually if a president is said, it isn't just we when putting forward decisions or as President, we use the trial decisions sometimes as well. But you usually look for the Privy Council decisions or the decisions that have been appealed all the way, or a Court of Appeal decision because you see that it has been scrutinized. If you don't agree or if you don't accept that something was decided correctly, then you have the option to appeal to the Court of Appeal and appeal to the Privy Council. And then after a while, after all the legal arguments, you decide that. This is the position that we adopted in the case of Pratt and Morgan. That is also why I say that that is a different case because as I mentioned before when we discussed the death penalty, the Privy Council have decided it's on one basis, which we have seen in Chandler and then in the Caribbean Court of Justice, the judges in that court have decided that the Saban's Clause decision in a completely different way. If you're being quite. I don't think that persons really understand how interesting that development is that we have The Privy Council who have said that you can't really necessarily go behind the savings, the piece of law because it was saved law. And we have the CCJ saying something completely different as well. So sometimes we do see those things happen. But at the end of the day we have a system in place where firstly you bring it forward. You don't have an attorney, you're not paying attention, the attorney, all this money for nothing. We have to go, we have to research it and look and see what, how the court decided it before, how other courts have decided it, how we think it should be decided and put forward those arguments, make those arguments to court in writing, orally. The judge decides. If you don't accept that the judge was right, you can appeal and then you're appealing. You have to set out your grounds of appealing, that's appealing and say, hey, I don't agree with this decision because this is wrong. This is wrong. You have to set it out. Usually is a, once you, once you're reaching your appeal court, you know you have to come real good. You have to ensure that your arguments are even sound. You can have a panel of five or three judges now scrutinizing everything that was put forward. If you don't agree with what the Court of Appeals say, you have this, the option to appeal again to the Privy Council. Now you have the Law Lords now deciding whether they accept the decision of the trial court or not. So we have now went through three different courts who have scrutinized the decision and then a precedent will be set. So hopefully our hope is that by the time we reach the Privy Council. That is why you usually look to those decisions first when you're putting forward arguments. You know that it has went through extreme scrutiny and more than likely this is decision and a precedent has been set. [00:21:32] Speaker A: So basically whatever the, the presiding judge decided upon or adjudicated on and make his pronouncement on. [00:21:41] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:21:42] Speaker A: Gavel went down. [00:21:43] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:21:43] Speaker A: This is the judgment when you appeal and you go before the appellate judges and you, you present between five, three to five judges, your case, your appeals, your reason for wanting this judgment overturned must be airtight. You must now put it there. Yes. Where you did your research. This is why you are saying that this judgment is either harsh and unimpressive or whatever it is, it's unfair. [00:22:10] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:22:10] Speaker A: It should not have been. [00:22:11] Speaker B: You have to set that out. You have to set all the reasons why you think it is wrong. So one of the first things you have to do is so outline your. [00:22:17] Speaker A: Grounds of appeal so the appellate judges now will go through your, they go through the entire case after that. So they will actually now start to look at everything that was presented between prosecution and. [00:22:29] Speaker B: Defendants are civil matters, while you could appeal civilizations. [00:22:32] Speaker A: So between plaintiff and defense, they go through it. Claimants or claimant, but in turn now we just say claimant. [00:22:37] Speaker B: Yeah. And one of the first things that you do is once you know you want to be, you have to request the transcript of the proceedings in the trial court because you usually have to give the court that and they will go through every single thing to determine if a mistake was actually made. So if it's a criminal matter, what. [00:22:53] Speaker A: If a mistake wasn't made? However, there was not. No, there wasn't. Well, you just find that the judgment was a bit harsh and oppressive. [00:23:02] Speaker B: So that depends. [00:23:05] Speaker A: Right? [00:23:05] Speaker B: So if it's a criminal matter, you could appeal firstly, for instance, the conviction and you could say that you don't believe that you should have been found guilty. Or you could appeal the sentence and say, okay, I was found guilty, but I feel as though the sentence that the trial judge gave me was a bit too harsh. And then you have to set out and say why? I think that the sentence was too harsh because I look at previous decisions and have a case with similar facts and this person received 10 years and I received 35 years in prison for the same thing. And you have to set that out, you request the transcript, you let the. So that the court could see what exactly happened. And then the court decides if you're appealing the conviction, for instance, and you're saying, well, I don't feel as though I should have been found guilty because I didn't receive a fair trial. The judge didn't do this, the judge didn't give this direction to the jury, the judge didn't give a proper direction to the jury. And what the appeal court could do at that point in time is say, well okay, I agree and send the matter back to for there to be a retrial. Or they could say, I don't agree, I'm upholding that you were in fact there was a fair trial. [00:24:08] Speaker A: And so if there's, if they agree that the judge's decision was a bit punitive, do they have to do a retrial in order to, or can they pass a judgment that supersedes or vetoes the one of the sitting magistrates trial in those instances? [00:24:21] Speaker B: If you're saying that you didn't, if you're saying that you didn't receive a fair trial. So the appellate courts, they Usually don't preside over issues of facts. To be quite honest. You will have to show why you think that the trial judge didn't. [00:24:34] Speaker A: But if you were successful at that point, that's the question. If you were successful at getting the appellate judges to understand and agree and he's a attorney at law, you are correct. I think we did have some, some errors here. I think this could have been dealt differently. Is it that. Let's say you're saying, okay, the person was guilty, but this is what happened and they, they should not have received a 35 year sentence. When somebody has got 10 and precedents were set, maybe 12 might have been acceptable. Would they then adjust the sentencing? [00:25:02] Speaker B: Yeah, so they can adjust it. They have done it before and they would say, well, they think they will go through it and they usually appeal. If you read, I read probably I'm gonna need like that read the appeal decisions. See how they. Because you could see how they reason. You see how they come to their conclusion. They set it out. So what they usually do, they outline the facts. They usually give a summary of the facts and they usually give a summary of the law and they go through it and they say, well, in this case, this happened in that case, that happened in this case, the range is usually this. You see how the. We have a really amazing appellate court judges here. So it depends. I said it depends because it depends on what you appealed for. Right. If you're appealing and you're saying, well, I didn't receive a fair Charlie, I'm just going to just decide that this is what should happen. You're now not guilty. They're not. More than likely they would order a retrial. But if you're saying that is the sentence. [00:25:54] Speaker A: Yeah, they can lessen it. [00:25:55] Speaker B: Yeah, they would. Let me not say lesson it based on what is put forward. If they think that based on the previous decisions and based on the facts of the case or whatever, and this is the better thing, they'll. They'll say that. [00:26:07] Speaker A: And if they say that they then. [00:26:09] Speaker B: Or they could even order that the guy send it back for, for sentencing. Yeah. [00:26:14] Speaker A: For resentencing. [00:26:14] Speaker B: Yeah, they have that option also. [00:26:16] Speaker A: They could resent and they could order resentencing by the sitting magistrate who or the sitting judge who are, who went the presiding judge on that matter, they can send it back and the judge will then have to revisit when that, when that is, when that goes back to the judge. Does he have to revisit everything now and then say okay, he agrees. What if he just, he can't disagree at that point, you have to resentence. [00:26:38] Speaker B: Yeah, well, yeah. And now, hopefully, well, you have, now have the benefit of the decision of the Court of Appeal and you go through the system, you go through the process again. You hear submissions from prosecutor, you hear submissions from the defense and you decide what was the sentence that this person should have. [00:26:52] Speaker A: Right. And in the absence of that, and it goes to the Privy Council because the, the appellate judge, because the Court. [00:26:59] Speaker B: Of Appeal could come and say, well, no, I'm dismissing this appeal and you could appeal to the Privy Council, then obviously there's a process. You can't just go once only. And you do really have grounds. You have to apply for leave. And most time you have to set out why you want to appeal the decision and all that. I don't think it goes. And they decide. So like even Vibes Cartel's case, for instance, he was found guilty by the trial judge. He appealed, his appeal was overturned and he appealed to the Privy Council. [00:27:25] Speaker A: And that's when, that's when he got, he got freed. Yeah, because he went there. But that's a very costly and, and. [00:27:31] Speaker B: Time consuming, very costly. All right, process. [00:27:35] Speaker A: I think we get some information there. [00:27:37] Speaker F: Brother David, good morning to you and your guests in the studio. [00:27:40] Speaker A: She's a focus. [00:27:41] Speaker F: My driver's permits are going to be expiring on 13th April, 2026 this year. According to what they say, you go online one month before and you do your application in such a manner. So my question is now, if I do that one month prior to the expiration date of my permit and I do get a date down the road, let's just say two, three months from then, am I, am I supposed to print out that and keep in my possession until that date comes for me to go and renew my permit, or are you saying that if I go to the license office when I print it out, I will be charged a higher fee for an expired driver's permit? Please reply. Thanks. [00:28:27] Speaker B: That is such an interesting thing. And I think that one of the ministers should decide at this point. [00:28:31] Speaker A: We already know the answer to that. [00:28:33] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:28:33] Speaker A: I will tell you. Yes, you are subjected to pay delayed fees. [00:28:37] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:28:37] Speaker A: And as, as Andisa said the minister, they need to revisit because Andisa said it on the onset of justice this morning, that they ruled out this template of punitive measures without proper infrastructure to deal with the influx of motorists now trying to align themselves with the proper, the correct thing. So what we saw the prime minister dug up was how lawless we are. And not, I'm going to use the word lawless, but how lackadaisical and complacent we are. Because here is something that people don't know. Do you know insurance companies send you notification that your insurance is about to expire? They send it. They send you via a text. They call you and they also send it out in ttpost in the mail. I have received correspondence reminding me within the next six weeks your insurance will be expired. Within a month, you have to renew. I have gotten those reminders from insurance companies for motor vehicle. So even if I forget, I got that notice three ways. A text came to my phone, I got a phone call from the insurance company and I also received correspondence in the mail reminding me. So I ignore all those three things. Let's say I missed the phone call and the person called. I didn't get the phone call. I missed it. They probably call back. I didn't answer because I don't know this number. Them dotitious people just do you do that too. Don't say for me. Create any number. Really can't do that. You're a business person. What if you're. What if your. Your brothers. [00:30:21] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:30:21] Speaker A: And they fall along somewhere and they just give my call. I'm gonna call the police. Just call my sister for mena, please. And this person. What's your number? Nobody's just calling me. And your face skin up. So may not answer that. And you're only to find out after your family is in distress. I don't ever sub. If you answer the phone call and is somebody that on the other end that you do not wish to speak, what do you have the power to do? [00:30:43] Speaker B: Yeah, you can hang up if you want to listen. [00:30:45] Speaker A: So the insurance company reminds you. So, Larry, to answer your question, Andissa was correct. Boy. The infrastructure is not proper right now. So if you overstay your permit, you will be penalized for it no matter what system they give you. Good morning. Hello. All right. Good morning. [00:31:08] Speaker D: Good morning. My question really was in terms of the sanctioning of judges for failure to uphold the constitution and the law. This is not. It may seem as if this is something very strange, but actually it's not so. Section 137 of the Constitution speaks directly to professional misconduct of judges and how it dealt with. My question to you is how do you go about the process? So you mentioned the Judicial and Legal Services Commission. How do we get to that body to investigate matters? And. And how do we. How are we Assured of an outcome. Can I listen? [00:31:52] Speaker A: Of course, yeah. [00:31:54] Speaker B: To be quite honest, I'm not certain how they initiate the process. I'm certain, not within the judiciary, because the judiciary will usually take charge of that. You go, you report the decision. But what I am saying is if you feel as though a judge hasn't upheld the Constitution or you feel as though their decisions based on what you're saying, I could be wrong. It seems as though the issue surrounds the decision that the judge, the judge has made. And what I'm saying is there's a process to appeal. If you think that the decision that the judge made isn't correct and if you feel as though, so I mean, one decision that a judge made that you don't necessarily agree with, I don't think that does essentially misconduct. Unless if you're saying that they acted, you know, they received a bribe from somebody to rule in this particular way, then I think that that will be classified into the category of misconduct. You understand what I'm saying? So you have to actually understand what is the complaint against this judge in the first place. If you feel as though their decision isn't correct, then we have the process of appeal. If you feel as though they have misconducted themselves, that has a very specific definition. This judge was influenced by a politician to rule in this particular way, or this judge was influence to get rid of this case or something like some kind of thing like that they received a bribe and you have actual evidence to show that the judge received this bribe, then I think that that will fall within the category of misconduct. We can't be too quick to say that because a judge didn't give a decision that you probably don't agree with that will fall within the category of misconduct. But if they do, then I guess that you go, you report it to the judiciary and they will end their internal process will kick off. Because as I indicated, generally persons shouldn't, well, at least external persons shouldn't have like a hand in disciplining judges. It will be the. Yes, the Judicial Legal Service Commission said. [00:33:48] Speaker A: To get that done with, that the CJ should play a part in such once it's reported. [00:33:53] Speaker B: Yeah. So obviously the CJ is the head of the judiciary. So he will determine how that is done and he will determine if to direct it to the Service Commission. Etc. [00:34:04] Speaker A: Hello, Good morning. Hello. All right. Hello, Good morning. [00:34:11] Speaker F: Hello. [00:34:12] Speaker G: Morning, Davy. [00:34:12] Speaker A: Yeah, quickly, please. [00:34:16] Speaker G: Demand. If ever you happen to get an appointment after the month, you will still pay the fine. If your DP update, the officer will tell you you could have gone out walking like county or Port of Spain. I'm not sure for Arima. So after your appointment when you book it online, you although you have that appointment, you could still go to a walk in like county or Port of Spain. [00:34:41] Speaker A: All right, thank you for that. And I was about. I agree. I. I did a walk in on my own last year, November. I actually did a walk in. I wasn't aware that you had to do it online until after I got through and I left. I went to. I went to Sandy Grande. Yeah, listen man, in less than 15, within 15 minutes I received my. My license. [00:35:02] Speaker B: But the thing about that is because like even when you're renewing your passport, I. You could usually go to the branch in Sandy Grande but they usually only take the first 10 persons and after that no come back the next day. [00:35:13] Speaker A: Well, I went there like two o'clock in the day. [00:35:15] Speaker B: Yes. [00:35:16] Speaker A: And I got you. [00:35:16] Speaker B: Oh, well, I remember when I was trying to renew my partner and I needed it urgently and I was only getting a date some next year I went but he had to be really. And I was number 10 and the person after me, they were like, well, we're not taking anybody else. But what I'm saying is that's very difficult to allow that. No person have to try to get you to renew. It's not as though. It's not as though they're not willing to renew the license. They are, they are trying to. They aren't successful and they might still be penalized. [00:35:44] Speaker A: No, I want person. I want person to understand something and we have to go after this because you have caught. And I want to thank you very much for keeping your. I mean justice. We have new things or you're going to see the new. [00:35:56] Speaker B: Yes. [00:35:56] Speaker A: Artwork. The new artwork is coming within this month. Before the end of this month new guests will be on the show for justice and new promos and intros. All those things are coming within the first quarter of justice. That is going to be rolled out here on freedom. Some insurance companies give you a discount if you sign up for automatic renewal using your credit card info. Andissa. In the case where driver's permit renewal or license renewal can be worn in the civil court, the case with the driver's renewal can it be one in civil court they cannot charge you for late penalties. If this their system is at fault. Precedent was set. A lawyer won a case like that already. Is that fact. Well, we can't really go into it much. Again, we are on time on the nose of the time right now for the news coming up at 8 o'. Clock. But I will tell you, Davi, somebody asked me if I paid any late fees. No, I did not. But you had to. Remember, the prime minister ruled out these new fees and initiatives this year, January 1st. So anything last year was none and void and I was expired. I went a bit late to get mines renewed. But the thing is, that was from January 1st this year is when this initiative and these late fees were tabled. So it had nothing to do with last year. Andisa, thank you so much for today. It has been a pleasure being with you again. For justice, look out for another fantastic edition of this show next Friday at 7:20. The best insight, instant feedback, accountability, the all new Talk Radio Freedom 106.5.