You are hereCreate Content / MP Reinstated after quashing of criminal conviction - case of Fiona Jones in United Kingdom. Relevant to Basdeo Panday's case
MP Reinstated after quashing of criminal conviction - case of Fiona Jones in United Kingdom. Relevant to Basdeo Panday's case
The attached two cases need careful study. They are particularly relevant to Mr Panday's case. The key issues are almost identical. Fiona Jones was the MP for Newark. She was found guilty of falsifying election expenses. As a result of the criminal conviction she was removed from the postion of MP.
On appeal the Court found that the jury was misdirected and rightly quashed her conviction on 22nd April 1999. Jones was reinstated as an MP when the the High Court ruled on 30th April 1999.
This is where we are at this time with the Panday story; waiting on the Court to rule.
The attached cases are an enjoyable read. Many are betting that the court in T&T will rule in favour of Panday re-taking his seat in the House.
- 1292 reads
08:13 BST 2007-04-02
Jumbie, Like yuh playing devil or jab jab or what? Panday did not just wake up one morning and decide "Aye boy, dee moon eh right today...ah go declare meh seat vacant." - as if to say the moon was of all consuming importance and criminal allegations and findings against him were by the way.
It is obvious to me that the criminal matter was what played on Panday's mind and he had to decide what was the best thing to do at the time. But for the criminal matter, would Panday - the man that he is in public life - simply give up his seat? I don't think so.
If we rewind the clock to before any such issue of criminality arose, which is what the quashing his conviction has done - as in the case of Fiona Jones - we have to play a 'Back to the Future' game; except this is no game. This is what the judgement in the Jones case pointed out.
Little extreme? It may be, but so what? Panday suffered an extreme injustice and extreme measures are now required to reverse the effects of that injustice. The Nation suffered an extreme insult! Should the restorative and restitutive power of justice cower to circumstances created by unjust acts? If so then a message is unwittingly delivered to the would be perpetrators of mischief that they can get away with it, by creating seemingly irreversible situations. No. My view is that justice must always wrestle to reverse the effects of unjust acts - so far as the Almighty would allow.
Elections in a few months? I don't know why any thing so related to that is relevant. If we reverse the clock as I think we are meant to after Jones, we would not be asking the question or considering such things - in that correct course of history which Panday would have followed. I see much power in the two judgments on Jones.
Yeah I know it is not Trini law etc but the issues and the reasoning will have an impact on local Trini judges. If it doesn't and they rule not to re-instate him (and the case is being heard today 2007-04-02) I am pretty confident that Panday is ready to go all the way to the Privy Council again.
People on remand? They would not have had reason to be displeased if the correct course in history was here with us. So people on remand and their relatives should shut their unappreciative gobs, and strain their tiny intellects to understand that the Freedom of a Nation should take priority over their individual freedoms.
The single ultroneous cause of all this mess is pointing to back to one man: McNicolls. But it appears that he had company.
Yeah, you should note the point I made in my blog... you were right, I am stoking the fires... LOL. It is time we promote (or provoke) intelligent debate to raise the masses to independent thinking.
"Hmm, the plot thickens, Watson.
It appears that the AG has been hiding quite a lot pertaining to his role in this mess. Considering that the Prime Minister asked for the CJ's resignation in circumstances even less scandalous as this, would he now do the same for Jeremie? Or would he begin impeachment proceedings?"
<<<would he now do the same for Jeremie?>>>
I find it curious that most Trinis (myself included) would ask questions that you might think aren't rhetorical, only to look around and realize that everyone already knows the answer.
We ask these questions with a "hope" that the politicians would do the "right" thing -- or at least follow the lead of politicians in the UK and elsewhere, where sometimes the "right" thing is done.
Do many people agree that the AG needs to offer his resignation to the PM? YES! ... Do we think that he would do that?.... well, lets look and see which Trini politicians in recent history has politely resigned in the face of scandal. Is that their nature?
-G
(ps. To be fair, even though I doubt Jeremie will resign, I am told by several young attorneys on both sides of the political divide that he is a honourable and intelligent person. Let's see if politics has erased the better sides of him)
G,
I think we all have to recognise that one of the main reasons they never do the 'right thing' is because they know they can get away with their misdeeds. Trinidadians are complacent to an alarming degree, and unless they are directly affected (and can burn tires in the road) they rarely take heed of when others do wrong. Hopefully, if the population becomes more educated, and see that what happens now (and also what happens to others) affect us all in the future as well, we may have a shift in this attitude. Until then, I dare not hold my breath.
I couldn't resist another response to these very good comments.
The right thing is to do the honourable thing - after the biggest Constitutional mess up in the whole of T&T's history!!
Both the AG and Chief Magistrate should have resigned ages ago. But ask yourselves why they haven't - and why the delay? Wasn't it the AG and the CM who made the same erroneous assertion that the Privy Council had considered parallel proceedings one of which was impeachment? (See Guardian 2007-03-06)
Well we need to ask ourselves how these two are joined so telepathically (or at the hip) with an alternate reality none of us mere mortals have access to!!
Why are they so joined?
It leaves one to wonder if these two draw confidence and strength from someone who they perceive to be in greater power - someone who is permissive of their apparent collusion. Who is that person? Does s/he exist? Is s/he honourable?
I'm afraid my friends that 'honour' and 'shame' are words that have been expunged from the vocabularies of those we look to for honour.