Advocacy that only the prosecutor is obliged to report a previous relationship with a juror is most unsound

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

Around the Web

Comments