Disrespect for court

AN INQUEST is an important inquiry as it seeks to determine the truth about the death of persons occurring in strange, dubious or suspicuous circumstances. The cause of justice would demand that such inquiries be treated seriously and with a sense of urgency by all the parties involved, both witnesses and attorneys. That is why we find it quite outrageous for attorney-at-law Martin George to treat Coroner Sherman McNicolls and the matter currently before him with such scant regard.

It seems that Mr George considers attending an ordinary meeting of Crime Stoppers Inc, a public service group of which he is the chairman, as more important than his duties at the inquest into the fatal shooting of teenager Phillip Seerattan which took place at the International School at Westmoorings last November. As a result of Mr George’s absence, Coroner McNicolls had to adjourn Thursday’s sitting of the inquest to Friday October 3.  We agree entirely with attorney Lydia Mendonca who said that Mr George’s conduct amounted to total disrespect for the court. We cannot see anything on the Crime Stoppers agenda being so urgent as to take precedence over the sitting of the Coroner’s court. In our view, the proper course for Mr George was to have the Crime Stoppers meeting adjourned or to have it proceed without him.

Mr George could not be so shallow not to understand the importance of his role at the inquest, representing as he does one of the two police officers who responded to the call for help from the International School after Seerattan, armed with a gun, had invaded the premises and shot a security guard. The Coroner clearly could not proceed without this attorney. But what makes Mr George’s disrespect for the court even more offensive was his insistence on attending the Crime Stoppers meeting although the Coroner had informed him that Thursday’s sitting would proceed as scheduled. Mr McNicolls pointed out to the court that the attorney had faxed him a letter on Tuesday saying that he could not attend Thursday’s sitting because of his Crime Stoppers meeting. The Coroner then replied to him that the inquiry would proceed as scheduled. Instead of making the proper choice, however, Mr George went to his Crime Stoppers meeting and sent a copy of the same faxed letter to the court on Thursday.

Mr McNicolls, who is also Chief Magistrate, described Mr George’s conduct as “a classic case of how attorneys frustrate the functioning of the courts.” If what he says is true, that attorneys use excuses for this reprehensible purpose, then something is terribly wrong with the operation of our judicial system. Over the years, we have heard complaints from judicial officers about the stratagems some lawyers use to obtain repeated adjournments, thus unduly prolonging matters for their own purposes but creating painful delays and pile ups in the court system. If this “practice” still persists then it must be the responsibility of magistrates and judges to do something about it; to stop granting adjournments on flimsy excuses and to deal with delinquent attorneys. In any case, it would be horrible if the disrespect for the court shown by Mr George reflects the general attitude of our legal practitioners.