BRING CHARGES

IF THERE is evidence to support the suggestion that some lawyers are assisting criminals in their criminal endeavours, then the Commissioner of Police should “hasten” to lay charges. This is the advice of the Law Association to Commissioner Gary Griffith.

In a statement dated November 2 but released to the media yesterday, the association said Griffith had now joined with the national security minister to reveal that there were lawyers who, “in some as yet unidentified way”, were assisting criminals.

“If there is in fact evidence of this nature, the commissioner should hasten to lay charges against these errant attorneys,” the association advised.

“We would add, on this occasion, that if there is any such evidence which the commissioner does not consider would support a criminal charge, he should nevertheless consider making the evidence available to the president of the law association so that he might consider whether a disciplinary offence has been committed and refer same to the disciplinary committee for action.”

The advice was also extended to the Prime Minister who has also suggested the same most recently on a political platform.

“In this regard, we offer the same advice to the Honourable Prime Minister who, on a previous occasion, has criticised the Law Association for failing to take any action against lawyers charged with criminal offences.”

However, despite its advice to both men, the association pointed out “there was no rule, law or accepted practice which allows disciplinary action to be taken against a lawyer merely because he or she is charged with a criminal offence.”

“The Constitutional right to the presumption of innocence precludes any such precipitate action.

“If however, the authorities are prepared to share with the association the evidence which is available to support disciplinary action, the president would carry out his statutory duty to consider the same.

“In the meantime, it is unfair to repeatedly accuse anonymous lawyers of criminal activities without taking any follow-up action and thereby to tarnish the reputation of those individual lawyers who provide their services honestly and with integrity.”

Within the last month, Griffith has engaged in a verbal battle with at least two criminal defence attorneys who advised him to ensure that police effectively do their jobs to ensure conviction.

Griffith also took aim at a magistrate who scolded police for giving the public the impression that judicial officers were not doing their jobs. Griffith advised the magistrate to not bully his police officers while also criticising him for granting bail to a man who was allegedly arrested with several high-powered rifles.

In its response to the back-and-forth between the commissioner and attorneys, the association said while the commissioner enjoyed the right of any citizen to criticise, respectfully, the decision of any judicial officer–except in a few specific cases–there was no law which mandates that bail be denied just because of the seriousness of the offence, although that is a factor which is taken into account.

“To repeat, everyone is entitled to be presumed innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. The fact that a charge has been laid by police, who no doubt believe fervently in the strength of their case, is no licence for a judicial officer assuming that the allegation is true.

“This is why the Constitution provides for a right to be granted bail which can only be denied under specific circumstances set out in the act and, more generally, if the police provide evidence to the court that the accused is likely not to turn up for the trial or is likely to commit another offence while on bail or is likely to interfere with witnesses in the case.”

The association said the commissioner was free to criticise a judicial officer who grants bail despite evidence which shows that it should not, however, it was “unfair criticism to point simply to the seriousness of the offence as the sole basis for the repeated denigration of the judicial officer.”

In his latest salvo, Griffith on Saturday insisted that “contrary to the myopic and archaic views of a few as it relates to the role and function of a sitting commissioner, he had no intention of adjusting his tempo to march to anyone else’s view of the dynamic responsibility.”

In a statement, Griffith maintained that the role of the commissioner of police had evolved.

“With the advances in technology, various uses of communications channels, speed of information, it is not only an option, but a mandate to ensure the national community is kept abreast of police activity. This includes speaking out on behalf of members of the service and, further, to identify the issues which affect the police service, particularly an inherited high crime rate and other factors that directly and indirectly relate to crime in our country, such as the criminal justice system and the dispensation of justice.”

He accused attorneys of skewing his words and glossing over all his previous statements.

“However, I will again repeat for these “criminal lawyers”, that judicial officers must give consideration to the seriousness of the offences being alleged and the other factors as set out in the law. I am only restating the law as it is.

“Crime is big business and I ask the country to note who in the criminal justice system takes offence to me speaking the truth.

“Those who object to my factual comments are those who defend these elements, so their job is to get criminals back out onto the streets and there is no concern to them that law-abiding citizens could be affected. This is also why they have issues with the police, our job is to arrest those who they defend.”

Griffith said there are criminal lawyers and there are lawyer criminals.

“I will not apologise for being the catalyst of change or calling out nonsense when I see it.

“For far too long the scales of justice have favoured criminal elements, and I intend to expose it and do what is required to tilt it toward the rights of law-abiding citizens.”