Dear Editor,
Mr Bryn Pollard, SC, clearly an admirer of Mr Nigel Hughes, is concerned that the police are probing transgressions that Mr Hughes may have allegedly committed. “What could the police be probing, and more importantly, what could have motivated them to do so? Was there a complaint made by someone of which the public is unaware?’ he inquires. ‘Methinks thou protest too much’ (Shakespeare’s Hamlet) only makes routine nervousness into greater unease if Mr Pollard should know. If no crime was committed what reasons are there to fear?
Law and order cannot achieve validity and significance in selective application to its letter and not the spirit to now exclude its practitioners all together. Any demands which advocate no justice no peace become laughable as found in Mr Pollard’s refusal to acknowledge problems in our midst as was captured in his SN letter of 19 October, 2013. When problems exist in our society even the police are being cautioned not to fix them. In a worldwide economic recession, already the PNC’s Mr David Granger has condemned the creation of the SWAT team to tackle crime.
What is really implied when Mr Pollard writes: ‘It does not augur well for the recently confirmed Commissioner of Police Mr. Brumell to have his subordinates investigating matters which cannot form the basis for any criminal charge.”
Obviously excusing the much criticised Mr. Nigel Hughes’ misconduct for not disclosing to the judge a previous Attorney/client relationship with a member of the jury —- he is an officer of the court —- cannot effectively invalidate Mr Hughes increasing injudicious behaviour. Mr Harry Gill’s 17 August 2013 letter in the Chronicle which highlights misconduct does not automatically become dismissed because it triggers Mr Pollard’s protestations. Mr Pollard’s resort and reliance on research alone cannot do that. Any media advocacy that only the prosecutor is obliged to report a previous relationship with a juror but this does not equally apply to the defence, thereby ensuring justice, is most unsound and is governed by other motives. It means Mr Pollard cannot be right or is automatically correct . The trial judge immediately recognised a perversion of justice.
The pronounced absence of a commentary from either the Guyana Bar Association or its female counterpart the Guyana Association of Women Lawyers , as Mr Pollard reminds us, may create an impression that Mr Hughes’ behaviour is sanctioned. Apparently they, too, do not see any problems which require fixing.
Yours faithfully,
Sultan Mohamed
