Montserrat 12

The proposed new draft Constitution for Montserrat is filled with anti-democratic provisions.  These include:

            (a) The Deputy Governor will be able to act in relation to the public service without being obliged to take the advice of the Public Service Commission.  Except in the case of the most senior ranks, this is clearly undesirable;

            (b) The Attorney-General, the Financial Secretary and the Deputy-Governor are not elected.  As in other Overseas Territories with modern colonial Constitutions, they should have no vote in either the Cabinet or the Legislative Assembly;

            (c) The need for a Director of Public Prosecutions has clearly been recognised by the section 45 provision enabling his appointment.  It appears from the wording of the section that the intention is to have the Attorney-General continue to act in that position for an indeterminate period into the future.  The draft should be amended to establish the office and to require the appointment to be made;

            (d) A Magistrate in Montserrat has considerable power, and can impose fines of up to $100,000.00 and prison sentences of up to 10 years.  As Montserrat does not have a High Court judge, the Magistrate plays an enhanced role.  He or she routinely hears cases that would normally be tried by a judge and jury.  The section 84 appointment of the island’s Magistrate is by the Governor after consultation with the Chief Justice.  This is unacceptable in a modern democracy.  It does not insulate the Magistrate from the Executive as should be the case.  For a Magistrate to do a proper job in Montserrat he or she needs to be shielded from influence and pressure from both the Ministers and the Governor.  Additionally, there is a well-known current regional initiative to integrate the Magistracy into the judiciary.  The provision in the draft should be that the appointment and discipline of the Magistrate is by the Governor acting on the advice of the regional Judicial and Legal Services Commission, of which the Chief Justice is the head;

            (e) The thought that the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Magistrate can be removed from office by the Governor and the Secretary of State is a frightening one.  These are both judicial officers.  The rule of law demands that both their appointment and removal be out of the hands of the Executive and be either by, or on the recommendation of, the regional Judicial and Legal Services Commission;

            (f) Currently, the police police themselves.  Complaints about police misconduct made to the Commisioner of Police and the Governor are notoriously not investigated impartially.  Such complaints invariable attract hostile responses from the police.  The absence of any provision in the draft for a Police Complaints Board is regrettable.  Such a Board is a vital tool for controlling police misconduct.  Such a Board will effect greater transparency and justice for all.  There is no reason why Montserrat should have a lower standard of governance in this respect than Bermuda or Britain itself; and

            (g) The FCO proposes through this draft Constitution to retain draconian and unrestrained powers to legislate for Montserrat over the heads of the Legislative Council.  The new Constitution will preserve (i) the power to enact laws through the UK Parliament; (ii) the use of the Order in Council without prior consultation; (iii) the section 73 power of the Governor to refuse his assent to a Bill that has passed through the Legislative Council without any limitation; and (iv) the section 75 power of disallowance, though this section does require the Secretary of State to refer the offending law back to the Legislature.

            These provisions do not increase democracy in Montserrat.  They reduce what little amounts of justice and democracy Montserratians presently enjoy under threat of renewed volcanic activity.  As such, they amount to a step backwards in constitutional advance, and are a shame on the constitutional advisers who dreamed them up.

Grounds

The procedure the officer must follow when arresting me.  We were looking at our fundamental right in Anguilla to personal liberty guaranteed by section 3 of the Anguilla Constitution 1982, and the power of the police to arrest us as an exception to this right.  At this point it might be useful to recall the proper procedure to be followed during the arrest.

An arrest which would otherwise be lawful will be unlawful if the arresting officer neglects to follow the proper procedure during the arrest.  An arresting officer who fails to observe the required procedure may be liable for false imprisonment.  The government, and sometimes, if he was particularly badly behaved, the officer himself personally, may be made to pay damages.  The following are some of our most important common law rules that supplement or explain the constitutional protection of our right to personal liberty.

First, the rule is that the arrested person must be informed that he is under arrest, and he must be informed of the true ground for the arrest either at the time of the arrest or as soon as practicable afterwards.  The rule was originally established at common law by the leading case in 1947 of Christie v Leachinsky, but it is now a constitutional rule. 

So, it is provided by subsection (2) to the same section 3 of the Constitution, that any person who is arrested or detained shall be informed orally and in writing as soon as reasonably practicable, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest or detention.

The common law which has developed since Christie's 1947 case remains useful for an understanding of the proper application of the rule.  So, it has been held that the purpose of the constitutional right of every citizen to know why he is being detained is so that he will be in a position to know whether he is entitled to resist the arrest.  A person who is being unlawfully arrested has the right to resist.  If John Smith, a young man who is peacefully liming on the street corner, is approached by a police officer who holds on to him and says, “John Smith, come with me.  I am taking you to the Station.  The Sergeant wants to speak to you about wounding Mary Jones last week”, that young man is entitled to pull away and to say, “Do not put your hands on me again, or I will sue you for assault.”  What the officer has to say is something like, “John Smith, I am arresting you for the offence of wounding Mary Jones”.  That would be a lawful way to seize hold of John Smith and take him to the station.  It is not necessary for the ground of arrest to be expressed in precise technical language.  It is sufficient if the arresting officer conveys to the arrestee the substance of the alleged offence. 

The rule that the person arrested is entitled to be told the reason for the arrest does not apply in two circumstances.  The first is, where the arrestee must be taken to have been aware of the reason for the arrest, for example where he is caught 'red handed' in the commission of an offence.  The second is, where the arrestee made it impossible for him to be told the reason for the arrest by counter-attacking or running away.  Of course, if you know that you are being wrongfully arrested, it might be a very dangerous thing for you to resist.  You may get injured, if the police officer has lost his self-control.  It is much better to permit yourself to be illegally detained, and then to instruct a lawyer to sue for the insult and the injury done to you.

Arresting

Person arrested not bearing the same name as contained in the warrant.  We are looking at issues that can arise on arresting someone and depriving them of their liberty.  Officers have to be very careful when arresting someone, even with the protection of a warrant.  There are hidden hazards.  

            So, where a constable arrests the wrong person, that is, a person other than the one named in the warrant, he may be liable in tort for wrongful arrest or false imprisonment.  It is important that the warrant correctly name the person to be arrested.  This is illustrated by the 2002 Trinidadian case of Maharaj v A-G.  The warrant named the plaintiff as “Mary”, when her correct name was Kamaldaye Maharaj.  The arresting constables knew her as Mary.  There was no doubt that she was the person for whom the warrants were intended, and that she was well aware of that fact.  Nevertheless, the court held that the constables had no defence to an action for false imprisonment brought by Kamaldaye after the police case against her had been thrown out.  The warrants failed, as the law required, to correctly name the plaintiff.  In the circumstances, the arrest of the plaintiff ‘Kamaldaye’ was not in obedience to the warrant, which was for a ‘Mary’.

            We may say that can never happen in Anguilla where everybody knows everybody else.  That may have been true 30 years ago.  I am not so sure it still is.

Arrested

Arrested without a warrant.  We are looking at the lawful ways in which our second fundamental right under our 1982 Constitution of Anguilla can be taken away from us.  One way is when we are arrested by a police officer.  The old common law rules governing the powers of arrest without a warrant have been greatly expanded by statute.  Under the common law, a great deal turned on whether or not the offence that had been committed was a felony or was only a misdemeanour.  The common law rule was that where a police officer had reason to believe that I had committed or was about to commit a felony he could arrest me without a warrant.  In the case of a lesser offence, a misdemeanour or a summary charge, generally  speaking, in the absence of special statutory power, an officer without a warrant could only arrest me if I had committed the misdemeanour in his presence or if the officer believed I might escape or cause injury to some person or property.   

            Since the year 2000, section 356 of the Criminal Code provides the new rules for arrest without warrant.  The new rule, is, basically, that a police officer may arrest without warrant a person who has committed an offence that carries a penalty of 5 years imprisonment or longer.  Such an offence is called an arrestable offence.  If the offence is not an arrestable offence, that is, has a maximum sentence of less than 5 years imprisonment, then the officer will be very unwise to arrest the offender.  It is his duty instead to make a report of the commission of the crime at the police station, and to let the Inspector decide whether or not to issue a complaint to the Magistrate's Court.  If a complaint is filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate will issue a “summons” for the accused person to appear in court to answer the charge. 

            The police officer cannot simply arrest without warrant a person whom he suspects of having committed an offence which carries a penalty of less than 5 years.  Police officers go to police school and are required to study the Criminal Code so that they can be knowledgeable about which offences they can arrest without a warrant, and which ones they must get a warrant for.

            To summarise section 356:

(a) Any police officer or private citizen may arrest without warrant a person whom he has reasonable cause to suspect is in the act of committing an arrestable offence.  Remember that an arrestable offence is one which carries a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment or more. 

(b) Where an arrestable offence has been committed, any police officer or private citizen may arrest without warrant a person whom he, with reasonable cause, suspects to be guilty of the offence. 

            In considering whether to carry out an arrest without a warrant, a police constable may often be in a difficult position.  If he delays making an arrest, vital evidence may be lost, and a crime go unpunished.  On the other hand, if he acts too hastily in arresting, he may be held liable for false imprisonment.  The rules are that he may arrest you if he does not know your name and cannot get it, if he thinks you have given a false name, if you have not given a satisfactory address where he can contact you or if you have given a false address, or if arrest is necessary to prevent you causing physical injury to someone or causing loss or damage to property, or causing an unlawful obstruction of the highway, or if he has reasonable grounds for believing that arrest is necessary to protect a child or other vulnerable person.

            The test for determining whether an arresting officer had reasonable cause for making the arrest is whether a reasonable person, assumed to know the law and possessed of the information which was in fact possessed by the officer, would believe that there was at the time of the arrest reasonable and probable cause for it.  As Wooding CJ said in the 1965 Trinidadian case of Irish v Barry,

“The right or power of arrest without warrant ought never to be lightly used. Those who possess it ought, before exercising it, to be observant, receptive and open minded, not hasty in jumping to conclusions on inadequate grounds.  Caution should be exercised before depriving any person of his liberty, and more especially so when no prejudice will result from any consequent delay.”

Where there is only a suspicion that an arrestable offence has been committed, a police officer, but not a private citizen, may arrest without warrant a person whom he reasonably suspects to be guilty of that offence.  But, he should not jump to do so.  The rule is that if there is nothing to be lost by simply reporting the offender and having a summons issued for him to appear in court, then it is safer not to arrest him, nice as that might make the police officer feel.

            Finally, under section 356, where there is only a suspicion that an arrestable offence is about to be committed, a police officer but not a private citizen, may arrest without a warrant.

            There are a number of other laws that give police constables, customs officers, forestry agents, and numerous other officials, powers of arrest without a warrant.  Examples from our laws in Anguilla are section 39 of the Firearms Act (possessing a firearm without a licence); section 49 of the Vehicles and Road Traffic Act  (driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs); section 25 of the Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act (any person whom he with reasonable cause suspects of having committed an offence under the Act).  Police officers are expected to study these laws carefully so as not to exceed their powers when arresting a citizen.

Unlawful death

The right to life is wider than the death penalty.  At about 8:00 am on the morning of 1 December 1987, a 22 year-old Indian man was taken into custody by the police in connection with an investigation into a theft.  He was taken to a police outpost near to his home in the State of Orissa in India.  His mother, Nilabati Behera, visited him that night with his supper, which he ate.  On the following day, he was found dead on a nearby railway track with multiple injuries.  He was still wearing a handcuff.  The mother wrote a letter to the Supreme Court complaining that she wanted justice for her son.  The Supreme Court treated her letter as a writ petition in the original jurisdiction of the court under the Constitution of India, and accepted it as a case filed.  The court treated her letter as initiating a claim for compensation for contravention of the fundamental right to life of her son guaranteed by the Constitution. 

The Supreme Court of India directed a District Judge in the State of Orissa to hold an inquiry into the facts and to report back.  The police claimed that the deceased had escaped from police custody and that his injuries were the result of his having been run over by a train.  The medical evidence from the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination was that most of the injuries had been caused by a long and violent beating.  His body had, subsequent to his death, suffered further injuries from being dragged by a train after it had been placed on the train line.  The Judge conducting the inquiry reported back to the Supreme Court that according to the evidence that he had uncovered the deceased had died from multiple injuries inflicted on him while in police custody. 

The Supreme Court heard argument from the lawyers for the State.  It held that the State had breached the deceased's fundamental right to life.  The Court explained that the purpose of public law is not only to civilize public power, but also to assure citizens that they live under a legal system which aims to protect their interests and preserve their rights.  Therefore, it is the duty of the court to mould a relief by granting compensation in proceedings brought under the Constitution seeking enforcement or protection of fundamental rights.  It does so under the public law by way of penalising the wrongdoer and fixing the liability for the public wrong on the State which has failed in its public duty to protect the fundamental rights of the citizen. 

The judges of the Supreme Court sat down and worked out, based on the age of the son, what his loss of income to his family had been if he had lived to the usual age.  They awarded what was at the time a large sum of money by way of damages to be paid to the mother. 

As the Indian Supreme Court explained, the payment of compensation in such cases is not to be understood as damages, as it is generally understood in a civil action for damages under the private law.  It is to be understood as damages in the broader sense of providing relief by an order of making 'monetary amends' under the public law for the wrong done due to breach of public duty, of not protecting the fundamental rights of the citizen.  The compensation is in the nature of exemplary damages awarded against the wrong-doer for the breach of its public law duty.  It is independent of the rights available to the aggrieved party to claim compensation under the private law in an action based on tort, through a suit instituted in a court of competent jurisdiction, and/or the right to prosecute the offender under the penal law.  The Supreme Courts and the High Courts, are the protectors of the civil liberties of the citizen.  The court has not only the power and jurisdiction but also an obligation to grant relief in exercise of its jurisdiction under the Constitution and its duty to the victim or the heir of the victim whose fundamental rights are established to have been flagrantly infringed.  It does this by calling upon the State to repair the damage done by its officers to the fundamental rights of the citizen.  This, notwithstanding the right of the citizen to seek a remedy by way of a civil suit or criminal proceedings.

That was a powerful judgment.  It is worth remembering that it is a part of the law of Anguilla too.

Search Warrants

What is the proper response of a Justice of the Peace in Anguilla who is asked to issue a search warrant?  We all heard recently about a search warrant executed by the police.  The warrant had been issued by a Justice of the Peace, or JP.  The JP in question is no ordinary one.  He is the Rt Rev Errol Brooks OBE Bishop of the Diocese of the Northeastern Caribbean and Aruba.  The warrant had been sought by the police to search the offices of a young attorney.  They said she had appeared in court representing a person charged with fraud.  She is no ordinary young attorney.  She is one with a spotless record.  More to the point, she is a candidate in the upcoming general elections.  These are all issues that cried out for the application in question to be treated with strict regard to the law governing the issuing of search warrants. 

 The issuing of a warrant to search someone’s home or office is not a task lightly to be executed.  It is not a mere administrative task, to be routinely performed.  The issuing of a search warrant is a quasi-judicial function, to be performed based on the evidence presented to the Magistrate or other judicial officer.  Such a warrant includes power to enter the premises, by force, and breaking doors, if necessary, and to search the same for files, correspondence, computers, cellular telephones, flash drives, fixed and external hard drives, and to seize such items and bring them in due course before the Magistrate.  Such an application in relation to any professional such as a certified accountant, a physician or a lawyer, becomes a particularly sensitive matter.  The private and confidential affairs of possibly hundreds of innocent clients will be exposed to unauthorized eyes, and no one knows what use will be made of the information.  Such a step is clearly open to abuse.

The real reason why the police are not permitted to search a home or office without a warrant is to interpose the protection of a judicial decision between the citizen and the police.  All jurisdictions with the rule of law put constraints on the powers of police investigators.  They may not invade a home or office unless they obtain a search warrant, save where the officer is in ‘hot pursuit’.  It is a basic line of defence of the citizen against arbitrary search and seizure that such a warrant be first obtained.  Otherwise, we should all be subject to home invasion by the armed wing of the State on the slightest suspicion. 

As every first year law student learns, such a quasi-judicial function is to be performed only on the judicial officer being satisfied that the prescribed circumstances exist.  Our liberty depends on the independent scrutiny of the judiciary to protect the citizen against the excesses which would inevitably flow from allowing an executive officer to decide for himself whether the conditions under which he is permitted to enter upon private property have been met.  That is why an application for a search warrant must be accompanied by an affidavit setting out the evidence available and the grounds for the officer’s belief that further evidence is likely to be obtained as a result of the search.  Only a trained lawyer, familiar with the laws of evidence and the intricacies of criminal procedure, is likely to be able properly to perform this serious function.  No lay JP, even one as eminent as a Bishop, is qualified to issue such a warrant.  Such a warrant would only be granted by a qualified Magistrate if he or she was first satisfied that there was adequate evidence and grounds for suspicion.  This basic protection of the citizen must not be permitted to be trampled by the unnecessary use of a lay JP to avoid  the investigator having to go before a qualified Magistrate and to satisfy him that the test has been met.

So, the question becomes, how is a non-legal Justice of the Peace in Anguilla properly supposed to react when a police officer comes to him or her, in the middle of a political campaign, just before general elections, when there are two qualified acting Magistrates who could easily have been approached, and the lay JP is requested to issue a search warrant to search a professional person’s office and/or home, especially when that person is a candidate for election to the House of Assembly?  

 In my submission, the only proper thing for him to respond is, “There are two qualified Magistrates in Anguilla at this time.  You are asking me to do something that is going to have very serious consequences for the reputation and future career of a young professional.  There will be serious implications for the political campaign of this candidate for election to the House of Assembly.  You must be crazy if you think I am going to just sign and issue the Warrant without knowing what I am doing.  Leave my office immediately!”

For the future guidance of all non-lawyer JPs in Anguilla, that would be the only proper reaction to such a request.

Magistracy

Why is it not appropriate for the Commissioner of Police of Anguilla on his retirement to be appointed Magistrate of Anguilla?  It is unfortunate that I have to ask this question.  The answer should be obvious to all.  The answer is that such an appointment will tend to undermine public confidence in the administration of justice, and to bring the judiciary into contempt.  Just in case there is one single person out there who does not  see the point immediately, let me try my best to explain why this is so.

First of all, every police case brought in the Magistrate’s Court is brought in the name of the Commissioner of Police.  The Magistrate’s Court deals with 95% of the criminal cases brought to court in any country.  The trial of crime in Anguilla is for all practical purposes synonymous with the Magistrate’s Court.  If I get a summons, it will be titled “Commissioner of Police versus Don Mitchell”.  Then, every single investigation of a crime is conducted under the direction of the Commissioner of Police.  He is the head of the police force. 

In addition to the obvious conflicts of interest and questions of bias raised, there is the fundamental question of the separation of powers.  At least since the time of the Duc de Montesquieu, the principle of separation of powers has been an intrinsic foundation of the rule of law.  Ask any first year law student.

The consequence is that for a person who served as the senior executive officer of the police force to move directly into the position of Magistrate of Anguilla, without even a cooling off period of several years, is to induce such mistrust and misgivings in society as will tend to undermine the administration of justice in this country. 

What am I going to think about the sort of justice I am going to get if, when I respond to the summons, and turn up in court on Monday morning, and the man, who just a few scant months ago was the chief investigator into the charges brought against, me is sitting there with a smile on his face asking me how do I plead to the charge?  To say that I would feel outrage is the least of it.

            Then, there is the question of qualification.  It is not written in a law anywhere that I recall, but, a stipendiary Magistrate in the Leeward Islands, ie, one who is a qualified lawyer and who is paid a salary, has not since at least the 1890s been considered to be properly qualified unless he or she is a licensed barrister or attorney at law who has practised at the Bar for a minimum period of 5 years prior to the appointment.  The reason for this rule is well known to all legal practitioners.  Only a practicing attorney will be attuned to the finer points of the rules of evidence and of law.  When the Commissioner of Anguilla cabled me in 1976 in St Kitts and invited me to come to Anguilla to be the Magistrate, his cable said in part, “We understand you have been a practicing barrister for the past five years . . .”  By that, he meant that in his opinion I had the minimum qualification.

            This is particularly important when you are aware of the legal history of Anguilla.  Some 30 years and more ago, in the year 1978 to be exact, Anguilla had not yet re-joined the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court.  We were finding it difficult to get a judge to conduct the Criminal Assizes in Anguilla.  The Anguilla House of Assembly, in an attempt to speed up justice and to reduce the backlog of indictable cases, enacted a law making almost every felony and misdemeanour, excepting only murder, manslaughter and rape, triable by the Magistrate.  The Magistrate of Anguilla undoubtedly has the widest jurisdiction of any Magistrate anywhere in the West Indies.  It is a grave responsibility to be the Magistrate of Anguilla.  Only an attorney, not only well-learned in the principles of law, but also well-schooled in the practice of law, will be considered by the Bar to be capable of dispensing justice in such a court to the people of Anguilla.  Academic qualification alone is not sufficient.

In the case of our Commissioner, it is true that he went to law school.  It is true that he received both a bachelor of laws and a legal education certificate.  He is academically qualified to be a Magistrate.  But, this occurred some 10 to 15 years ago.  Since then, he has functioned solely as an officer within the police force.  He may have appeared as a prosecutor once or twice in the early days, but not in the past 10 years to my knowledge.  As such, in my opinion, he is completely unqualified for the job.

There is nothing wrong with a police officer rising to fill the post of Magistrate.  Many of us older heads know the story of John Lynch-Wade.  He served for nearly 30 years as Chief of Police of St Kitts.  He was the Chief of Police in Basseterre at the time of the Anguilla Revolution of 1967, and was alive and well when I last greeted him not a year ago.  When ‘Chiefie Wade’ retired, he went to UWI in Barbados and studied law.  On receiving his LlB, he went on to law school in Trinidad and obtained his legal education certificate.  He returned to St Kitts where he practised law for several years.  He was then placed on contract to be a Magistrate.  He functioned so well, that he rose to be the most senior Magistrate in St Kitts.  He filled that post for many years, until, a few years ago, he retired much loved and appreciated.  But, you see the difference, I hope.

            It is not as if this is the first time we have raised this issue in Anguilla.  I can well remember when a young Crown Counsel returned from Law School to Anguilla about 15 years ago.  Some Attorney-General made the idiotic recommendation to have him appointed as the Magistrate of Anguilla shortly after he returned from completing his education.  The Bar Association went on strike, and caused an uproar.  The Magistrate in question was told in no uncertain terms that no barrister would permit his or her client to appear before him, as he was not qualified to dispense justice in a court of law.  He quietly allowed himself to be transferred to Administration, from which he has now risen to be the Deputy Governor of Anguilla. 

            And now, he is on the verge, the cusp, of making the same mistake all over again.

RAPF

Six members of the Royal Anguilla Police Force arrested in the last five years.  As is so often the case, we must go outside of Anguilla to get the real news about happenings in the Anguilla administration.  Traditionally, the Anguilla public administration operates under the assumption that any bad news is better not published.  It may damage the tourism industry.  It will tend to throw a bad light on the island.  What the Anguillian people don’t know won’t hurt them.

Well, the news gets out anyway, but slanted and twisted one way or the other.  The story is then the subject of gossip and worry.  The facts are never certain.  Minor matters are blown up out of all proportion.  Rumour abounds instead of the truth.  Sunlight and fresh air still remain the best disinfectant.  If only we can get the authorities to recognise this fact.

So, we learn from London the above interesting piece of news.  It comes as an answer given in the UK Parliament on 26 October to a Parliamentary Question (PQ).  We don’t have PQ’s in Anguilla.  When a member of our House of Assembly gets up and asks a Minister for a report on a matter of national importance and great public interest, and the Minister promises an answer, the result can only be described as a demonstration of humiliating incompetence.  The classic example is the Hon Edison Baird’s question about the cost of the airport extension, and the Hon Victor Banks’ recent defective and incomplete answer to him.

Was this information about six arrested Anguillian police officers ever published in Anguilla?  No, of course not.  If it had been published, we would all want to know the embarrassing facts.  What were the names of the police officers who were arrested?  What were the offences with which they were charged?  Were they brought to trial?  What were the outcomes of the trials?

I think we can accurately predict the answers to the last two questions.  None are likely to have been brought to trial, and the trials therefore never took place.  They were all dealt with “administratively”, ie, the Governor and the Commissioner of Police ensured the matters were swept under the carpet, and the incidents concealed from the public.

And, no, I have no interest in asking the authorities for any information.  I am simply disgusted at this state of affairs.  I have no interest in the sordid details of the individual tragedies.

Related Posts:

Disclosure?

Warnings

I receive my first ever warning from the police. There is a popular remedy or relief available to any person in Anguilla who has a complaint against someone else. You make a report at the police station of your concern, perhaps that a crime has been, or is about to be, committed. If you do not want the person prosecuted, you ask the police merely to visit the accused and warn him not to repeat his conduct. It is a simple-to-use procedure. The police love it. It requires no police investigation. It can be carried out quite quickly. It probably is a very useful process in preventing the commission of more serious crimes.

So, what was my alleged crime? The warning was to the effect that Lolita Richardson had made a formal complaint at the Police Station. She had complained that I had slandered her name on the Elkin Richardson radio show, “To the Point”. I was warned. I thanked the police officer who delivered the warning to me.

And, to think that I was under the impression that what I said on the radio programme was meant to preserve her name. This is my recollection of what happened.

On the Friday, Elkin had called me on the telephone. He had told me that he had obtained a copy of the proposed new constitution for Anguilla. I have previously written about how anxiously we in Anguilla were awaiting our first viewing of this document. See the links below.

Regular readers of this Blog will recall the sequence of events. In the period January to August 2006, the Constitutional and Electoral Reform Commission had worked with the Anguillian public on preparing recommendations for the reform of the Constitution of Anguilla. In August 2006, the Commission had published its Report. Subsequently, the Chief Minister had established a Chief Minister’s Committee. This had spent several months reviewing and discussing the Report. After much discussion, the Committee had come up with a number of amendments of its own. They had then decided that they would prefer to see in print what the finished product of what they had approved would look like. A written draft of the proposed new Constitution would make it easier to discuss the recommendations with the public. They would have something in their hands that they could refer to.

The Chief Minister had consequently given Lolita Richardson her instructions. She was to prepare a draft Constitution. It was intended for circulation to the public and for general discussion. She was to incorporate in the draft (a) the recommendations of the Commission, together with (b) such amendments as the Chief Minister’s Committee had approved. The main amendment that the Chief Minister’s Committee had come up with was that Anguilla should go for “full internal self-government”. Most of the other amendments were relatively minor.

Mrs Richardson had proceeded to prepare an initial draft constitution. This draft had been further reviewed by the Chief Minister’s Committee for several more months. No member of the public saw a copy of it during the several months it was under discussion. The Committee, we must assume, had made a number of further amendments to Mrs Richardson’s draft. Eventually, as we understood it, Mrs Richardson had incorporated the corrections. She had delivered a finished product to the Chief Minister. The Chief Minister had called a press conference. He had with much fanfare officially handed it over to the Attorney-General. The A-G’s instructions were to publish the draft to the public for discussion.

Since the hand-over some months ago, we have been waiting for the promised publication. To this day, you cannot obtain a copy of the draft that was handed to the A-G. It must be some sort of State secret. So, I was excited about the opportunity I was being offered to see it. Elkin asked me if I could study it and appear on his show on the following Monday and give my views on it. I was happy to agree. [This call-in radio programme on the radio station Kool FM takes place every Monday evening at 7:30 pm, approximately. There are often interesting speakers on the programme. You should tune in. The link above even permits live streaming to anywhere in the world].

I collected the document from Elkin. He told me he had got it from an official source. He had been assured that it was the final draft that the A-G was supposed to publish to the public. I read it as promised. I compared its contents paragraph by paragraph with the 2006 Report of the Constitutional and Electoral Reform Commission. On the following Monday evening, I turned up at the radio station. That Monday evening, I duly gave the listening public my impressions about the document. As I recall, they were, and are, principally these:

1. The draft was very disappointing in that it contained less than half of the recommendations made by the Commission and accepted by the Chief Minister’s Committee.

2. The draft was objectionable in that it included the exact opposite of some of the recommendations made by the Commission and approved by the Committee.

3. The draft could not be a final draft. It was filled with so many typing errors, grammatical mistakes, and contradictions, that it must be a very early, uncorrected draft. It could not be the finished draft. The document appeared to be really a very amateurish effort. I do not believe that Mrs Richardson would have permitted such a rough draft to be submitted to the A-G’s Chambers as a finished product. Another reason why the document I was shown could not be a finished product was that the initial draft had gone through month after month of discussions among the Chief Minister’s Committee. This Committee had included some of the most powerful and some of the most highly educated government officers in Anguilla. They would have noticed the obvious typing errors, and corrected them before the document was handed over to the A-G. All this I explained on the radio programme.

Now, tell me what was so objectionable in what I said!

Elkin tells me that he received a similar warning from the police as the one I got. His theory for this bizarre incident is that Mrs Richardson could not have heard the radio show herself. She must have missed listening to it, and relied on a skewed account of it given to her by some mischief-maker.

I accept that as a possibility. I forgive Mrs Richardson. But, she should know by now not to believe everything she is told in Anguilla.

Related Blogs:

New Constitution: 18 April 2009

Constitutions: 18 December 2008

Constitution: 2 December 2008

Shallowness: 7 June 2008

Big Chief: 29 May 2008

Checks & Balances: 28 May 2008

Garden Path: 26 May 2008

Open Mic: 24 May 2008

Policing

The Police Press Conferences have been a major improvement in public relations. I have now written some 40 posts on this blog concerning the Royal Anguilla Police Force. Most of my posts have not been complimentary. It was just two years ago that the reputation of the Force in Anguilla was at rock bottom. No one in Anguilla knew what the police were doing to assist us in preventing and solving crime. I received a steady stream of telephone calls from frustrated victims and other members of the public.

On 21 April 2007, I wrote a column called Police 2. I described a meeting I had had with the Commissioner and some of his senior officers to discuss my disquiet with the functioning of the Force. Not that I have any right to be consulted. I just felt I had to put in my two cents worth about the need for the police to hold regular press conferences. There were other matters that I wrote about around the same time. I wrote this about my conversation with the Commissioner:

“I suggested the need for the police to improve the use of the press and other media. He explained that the RAPF is well aware of the need to improve in this area. They are considering training a suitable officer in PR work, either that or recruiting a professional. It seemed to me that it would take too long to wait for that process to be completed. I urged the Commissioner that all that is needed at the moment is to be more open with the public. I asked why not get a volunteer from the force and give that person the extra job of being public relations officer. Of course, it might not be as satisfactory as having a professional. Then, train someone in the meantime. But, why dilly dally and hesitate?

Giving the public the information it needs, in a way that does not harm the work of an on-going investigation, is something that, in my view, any intelligent police officer suitably motivated and encouraged can do in a way that would be an improvement on the situation we have at present. We all look at television. We see the way it is done in other countries. There is no more effective aid to the police than a well informed and alerted public. The Commissioner should be more active and imaginative in recruiting us in the effort to combat crime in our community.”

Some weeks later, the police began holding press conferences. They have continued to hold these conferences each week. They are not broadcast on radio and TV, but the radio journalists and the newspapers attend. They publish excerpts. The resulting rise in public confidence over the past two years has been little short of amazing. The police are now held in relatively high regard once again in the general community.

I have stopped receiving emails alleging incompetence and wrongdoing.

It is amazing what a cleansing effect a little sunlight and fresh air can have.

Related posts:

Police 3

Police 8

Crime Reduction

Transparency