According to an overview of the new rules, issued by the Judiciary’s Protocol and Information Unit via its website, it is aimed at speeding up the administration of criminal justice. The overview also describes the news rules as a robust case management system developed to deal with cases justly and expeditiously.

“The adjudication process within the Criminal Justice System has historically been beset by procedural and tactical delays both at the Magistrates’ Court and at the High Court. An accused person has a right to a fair trial and more broadly, both the accused person and society have a right to an expeditious and cost efficient disposition process,” the publication noted.

The new rules set out requirements for the prosecution and defence before a trial can proceed. It also talks about sanctions for attorneys who fail to adhere to the time-lines set, as well as the assigning of a case progression officer to each case to assist the court with the management of a trial. “The overall effect of these changes is a longer term culture shift within the system,” the Judiciary’s publication also noted.

IMPORTED RULES? But not all attorneys who practice in the criminal courts share the same optimism as the Judiciary.

A lawyer said it appears the new rules were imported from the United Kingdom’s criminal procedure rules without adapting it to the local court system.

While admitting it will ‘tighten the laces of the prosecution’, the attorney pointed out that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions depends on other agencies such as police investigators and the Forensic Sciences Centre, to progress their cases. “Theoretically it looks good but the practical reality is a different story,” the attorney said.

Several criminal defence attorneys also questioned whether the new rules applied to preliminary inquiries in the magistrates court.

“These rules cannot apply to preliminary inquiries although magistrates are under the impression it does. These rules are only to give the appearance that something is being done to the criminal justice system,” the attorney noted.

“You do not need rules to manage cases in the magistrates court or the High Court…just strong magistrates and judges do to so.” President of the Criminal Bar Association Pamela Elder SC, also expressed concern with the new rules.

NOT HELPING AT ALL “I respectfully feel these (new rules) are just adding an extra layer of delay and complexity to the system,” Elder said. She questioned the provision of Case Progression Officers who will be assigned to each case to assist with the management of the trial. “Will the court tell me who the case progression officer is? Who is going to pay for one? What are their qualifications,” Elder asked.

“I do not see how this is going to ensure my clients who are languishing in jail for three and four years, will receive an early indictment.

How are these rules going to cure the fundamental issues plaguing the criminal justice system?” What is there to expedite matters in the High Court? Don’t make false assurances and promises to people, she advised.

Speaking at a recent Joint Select Committee, DPP Roger Gaspard noted that there were currently 800 murder indictments pending for trial in the High Court. Elder also expressed concern about the nature of sufficiency hearings to replace preliminary inquiries and requirements for the defence according to the new rules. “How can the defence be mandated to state its case from the outset if I do not know what the prosecution’s case is,” she asked.

WON’T CHANGE A THING Attorney Jagdeo Singh said the new rules will assist in streamlining cases and will allow for better management and a more efficient use of the court’s time. But he too expressed concern with the number of outstanding indictments in the criminal courts and how the new rules are expected to treat with this issue.

“My concern is how do these new rules apply to the magistrates court and the power of the Rules Committee to set out the conduct of criminal trials in the magistrates court where the procedure is already spelt out in statute that is the Summary Courts Act,” Singh said.

Criminal defence attorney Larry Williams, while applauding the efforts of the Chief Justice and his team, said he does not see the new rules making a difference.

“It won’t make magistrates’ court start on time. It won’t ensure all magistrate courts operate till 4 pm and not end at 12 noon. It won’t make the understaffed DPP’s Office ready in matters before two to three years of charging a person and it certainly won’t make magistrates dismiss murders when the State isn’t ready,” Williams said.

According to Williams, it may assist in summary court matters such as the use of obscene language, to not drag on for years. Another criminal defence attorney agreed that there should be rules to govern criminal cases, but noted the ‘roll out’ of the new rules was not proper. “It is not equitable because the training required for all parties has not been done,” attorney Mario Merritt said.

NO HELP TO DEFENCE “It seems there is a greater burden on the defence to disclose more and there is no greater burden on the State to do the same,” he added.

“I find that this is an unfair situation.

The playing field has never been level. The State has always had the freedom to withhold information they think we (the defence) don’t need and I think that is unfair especially in light of them saying there is no ambush anymore.

“In the United Kingdom, you just don’t get what they (the prosecution) wants, they give you everything they have in their armoury,” he said. “Right now with the rules.

They want to know your defence,” he said, a point also raised by Elder.

“How is the defence mandated to state its case from the outset? What is from the outset,” Elder asked.

Merritt said he did not believe the defence should be made to reveal every single aspect of its strategy beforehand. “They say it will speed up the process but to me it will do the opposite and slow it down because if you put another cog in place before you get to actual trial, the bureaucracy will naturally slow down the actual even (trial) happening,” he noted.

“It feels like things are being shoved down our throats,” Merritt said. He also noted that there were a few criminal attorneys with three or four cases at a time in different districts and the new rules will only serve to put additional pressure on them. “I have enormous problems with the rules,” he said.

The letter was cosigned by Afra Raymond and David Walker and sent by email to the governor.

Raymond and Walker say that so far they have neither received an acknowledgement nor any response and so they decided to deliver the letter by hand.

In the letter, they expressed their concern about the direction of the “rescue” of CLICO and its associated companies after more than eight years under the control of the bank and government.

They also expressed concerns about the legality of the ongoing control of the institutions being maintained by the bank and any “untoward consequences” arising from that extended control and the inordinate delay in returning billions of dollars to taxpayers and its impact on economic decision making.

Raymond and Walker also questioned some ministerial statements which, they say, appear to be at odds with the stated goals of the “rescue” as set out in the Central Bank Act. They want to know whether the bank considers the principals of CLICO and its associated companies, British-American Insurance Company; Caribbean Money Market Brokers and Clico Investment Bank, to be fit and proper persons.

They said the bank has a duty to enforce its regulations to ensure the stability of the financial system by disqualifying unfit and improper people from acting as directors, officers, actuaries and controlling shareholders in financial institutions.

Raymond and Walker said the bank issued a press release on June 7, 2011 advising of its lawsuit against Lawrence Duprey, Andre Monteil and others after certain forensic investigations. They said since the bank arrived at that position over five years ago, it is “entirely unacceptable” that no action seems to have been taken to have the responsible parties declared unfit under the fit and proper regulations.

“Is it the case that such action is still in progress or is it that the clear view as then articulated is no longer the official position? Either way, in the light of previous statements, what is the Central Bank’s current position on the matter?” The letter writers point to sections of Section 44 of the Central Bank Act which stipulate the conditions under which the bank may retain control of an institution, questioning whether “given the removal of the risk of contagion and the stated solvency of the Statutory Fund, does the Act not now require (and) demand that control be relinquished? Given that the former governor of the Central Bank and other officers have made statements to the effect that the Statutory Fund is now in surplus and that the company is no longer in deficit, is it not now mandatory that the Section 44 control be relinquished?”

In giving her reasons for this move, May cast her decision in terms of seeking a renewed mandate from the people. She said since the clear referendum decision, her administration has faced resistance to its efforts to depart the European Union. And so, she is seeking to reduce uncertainty ahead of a crucial negotiations phase with the EU by asking for a stronger hand .

“Let us tomorrow vote for an election, let us put forward our plans for Brexit and our alternative programmes for government and then let the people decide,” May said. But what the British prime minister did not say is that her party currently enjoys a good lead in opinion polls. And while she castigated unelected members of the House of Lords who have opposed her Brexit legislation, it was becoming increasingly clear that she could not avoid the fact that while she is an elected MP, no citizen of Britain has ever voted for her as prime minister .

There was always, thus, something hollow about her strident insistence that “Brexit means Brexit;” that the referendum result was sacred and that it must be enforced at all costs .

May is also perhaps calculating that she can bolster her position at the negotiating table ahead of the French and German elections, the outcomes of which might change the dynamics. And in its own way, May’s snap poll is a gift to Nicola Sturgeon who has called for a second Scottish independence referendum in light of England’s moves to leave the EU .

Will the UK people vote May back in? She is certainly counting on it. The same section of the population that was behind the Brexit vote is likely to be energised this time around. It matters not how many erroneous “facts” featured in the previous campaign, this voting block is likely to be unchanged in their views .

Will there be enough of a backlash from complacent and quiet voters the first time around who may have underestimated the power of the xenophobic position taken last year? Assuming elections that are not compromised by international actors or otherwise, the people will have the final say .

Yet, May risks allegations of being disingenuous in her reasoning .

Gianni Pittella, the leader of the socialist bloc in the European Parliament, yesterday described May’s announcement as “immoral,” saying, “Theresa May is playing the same game that David Cameron played some years ago by exploiting Brexit to strengthen her political grip within her party and the country. It is immoral in a way. It is unacceptable to exploit such a sensitive issue as Brexit.” At the end of the day, however, it remains admirable that the democratic traditions within the UK are alive and well. As bad as the outcome of the Brexit vote was, one thing appears sure: it was the will of the people. It has never been a good argument to claim that voters were misinformed by erroneous advertisements and platform talk, for it is impossible to quantify the extent to which such things had an impact. It was also always nonsense to state that Parliament MPs should have the final say. Far from it, it was Parliament that empowered the UK Government to call on the people to have a direct say in referendums .

Come June 8, the British people will decide their fate. And that is how it should be .

I asked about it, since it was so noticeable.

The responses were varied. First most people attributed the absence of garbage and clutter to the strong leadership by the Democratic Alliance party that controls the administration of Cape Town. I am sure, but there were those who offered that explanation grudgingly. “You should visit the townships, the situation is different there.” Indeed it was, but still there was less gratuitous garbage than I have experienced in other parts of the world, including, unfortunately, Trinidad and Tobago (TT).

The collective commitment to aesthetics is a measure of the evolution of a nation. And by aesthetics I am not just referring to architectural prowess and budgetary commitments to common spaces that celebrate a common and diverse cultural heritage of a nation, but also the ease with which citizens work together to protect those common spaces.

I spent some of this weekend at the seaside. Sitting together feeling and shooting the breeze, we noticed a site so strange that it motivated some of us to joint action.

There on the shore was a lone young man collecting garbage: disgusting garbage strewn around by other uncaring and selfish people with no regard for their own environment, and certainly none for the common sharing of a unique national space.

Garbage like that represents an ugliness of spirit that we are loath to admit we are capable of, but we know in our hearts is part of being Trinidadian. Yet there he was, a quiet young man unwilling to become complicit. We had brought our garbage bags and would not contribute further to the shame.

He, however, took action and went along the beach with bag after bag collecting the spoils of someone else’s wanton disregard for his enjoyment of our patrimony.

Inspired by his singular action, others joined him. It is thus, I suppose, that a movement starts. A lesson to us all about accepting no less than the best for oneself, despite that utter contempt demonstrated towards us by others.

However, it set me thinking.

There is a beach as long as Mayaro in Sierra Leone. In fact, if one could see across the Atlantic Ocean, there it would lie, Lumley Beach, on the same latitude of our much-loved Mayaro. I often walked the full length of it for exercise while working there, but never swam. The garbage was disturbing.

Not just the fact of it, but what so much garbage says about the psyche of those who chose to live in such filth. We do it too.

I have no doubt I will lose some friends by writing this, because, for some reason, to love Trinidad is to deny its flaws; to pretend we are perfect. Well, we are not. A 2016 World Bank report put TT in first place for generating the most trash per capita in the world. Why? In Sierra Leone, I understood that the country was recovering from an extended and deeply traumatising civil war. Levels of poverty are still exceptionally high and people’s transition from sheer trauma through survival to contributing citizens is slow (recovery from war is a topic for another article).

What then is it about Trinidad that makes us so cavalier about chucking garbage around? Like the high levels of violence, and the surprisingly large numbers of violent extremists, TT produces per capita more dirty people than most countries. These are not unrelated statistics since there is a common contradiction that runs through these unfortunate trends: when compared to other democratic countries, the relative wealth of TT would normally indicate far lower levels of violence, far fewer disgruntled people acting out in violently extreme ways, and higher levels of commitment to national pride, at least by not strewing garbage everywhere.

Perhaps the singular actions of that young man who d e c i d e d to do his little bit for his country is sign of a changing trend.

In a telephone interview on CNC3, Rowley agreed with former Transport Minister Stephen Cadiz that, “the cargo ferry service to Tobago is vital and essential.” He also agreed with Cadiz that, “there has to be an answer to the question as to who pulled the Galicia off the route and created this crisis for Tobago.” “The only assurance I can give now to the people of Tobago is that this government will do everything logically, logistically and feasibly possible to try to get Tobago’s essential service in place,” Rowley said as he recalled that he met on Monday in Tobago with members of the Tobago Chamber of Commerce and gave them this same assurance.

On the withdrawal of the Galicia from the sea bridge, Rowley stated, “The answer is simply the owners of the vessel have taken the boat off the service because the terms they demanded from Government cannot be met.” Notwithstanding the importance of a reliable cargo service to Tobago as well as disruptions occurring on the sea bridge, Rowley said this does not deviate from the point that Government has found itself in a situation where persons are making demands which it cannot, will not and must not meet.

“The Government will not be blackmailed and that is the cause of the problem. There was an agreement, confirmed by lawyers, that there was an 18 month arrangement in place that would have taken us until October 2017.” However, the Galicia’s owners had determined they want a three-year, with a twoyear extension, meaning a fiveyear contract.

Indicating the Galicia’s owners promised to pull the vessel off the sea bridge if Government did not agree to this arrangement, Rowley said, “They then gave us an ultimatum for Friday and that is what we are dealing with now.” The Prime Minister said the Port Authority is looking for alternative vessels and he has been advised that a vessel from Guyana may be able to assist.

Rowley explained that the tender process for a cargo vessel will be completed on April 24. He said once the Port Authority examines tenders to determine what alternative vessels are available, Government,”will move with expedition to choose one of those vessels and get it to Tobago as quickly as possible.” The Galicia’s final sailing is this Friday.

Saying an alternative vessel is not something “you can take off the shelf ”, Rowley warned that for a few weeks, there will be disruption and inconvenience on the sea bridge. In the meantime, “we are using whatever resources are available to get some if not all cargo to Tobago.” Rowley reminded that the terms and conditions of the Galicia’s contract, “are in fact the subject of criminal investigations at this point of time” as documents are being examined at the level of the Office of the Attorney General.

Last Friday, Attorney General Faris Al-Rawi said he will complete his analysis of the documents sent by Works and Transport Minister Rohan Sinanan, sometime this week.

Al-Rawi said he will then provide his legal opinion and recommendations as to any action to be taken in respect of any wrongdoing in this matter. He described the situation as tantamount to, “throwing cash into the sea.” Sinanan’s immediate predecessor Fitzgerald Hinds said reports alleging that Cabinet rejected a note from him to extend the Galicia’s contract are, “totally false.” Sinanan has indicated that the TT Express, TT Spirit and a barge could be used to handle the Galicia’s cargo in the interim.

Two Coast Guard vessels are also being considered as interim options.

Yesterday’s marathon session, which began at 2 pm and lasted at least four hours, was called to allow the board to review all replacement options and make a recommendation to Government, on the most suitable vessel, to take over inter-island cargo shipments.

Checks by Newsday revealed that the Alison Lewis-led board remained ensconced in the boardroom at PATT offices, Dock Road, Port-of-Spain, all afternoon.

Works and Transport Minister Rohan Sinanan, was not in attendance but members of PATT management were present; at least for a portion of the meeting, to present their findings on information requested by the board last Thursday.

The outcome of yesterday’s meeting will be revealed at a joint press conference at 1 pm today at the Ministry of Works and Transport’s head office, Richmond Street, Port-of-Spain at which Minister Sinanan and members of the PATT board are scheduled to address the media.

The Galicia is a 13-year-old vessel that began principally transporting cargo between the islands in July 2014. The previous administration paid $48 million for an initial 12-month charter. Following the expiration of that contract, the vessel had been on a monthto- month contract with the PATT for the past 18 months.

Roget’s infamous statement to the energy giant to, “take your rig and go”, has been the subject of much discussion for and against the statement. In an interview yesterday, OWTU chief education and research officer Ozzi Warwick said the reaction by the business sector was representative of a “post-colonial mentality withdrawal syndrome” which is evident in society.

“The fundamental issue here has to do with Trinidad and Tobago’s relationship with multi-nationals, and importantly, their role in post-colonial economies,” Warwick said, adding that no one paid attention to the context of Roget’s statement regarding workers’ health in the production of oil and gas.

“It is as if workers’ lives did not matter,” he said. “Despite this, the Energy Chamber put forward a very disturbing response, which argued that workers are abusing the Occupational Safety and Health Act to engage in work stoppage,” he added, noting that the Chamber’s argument is, “devoid” of any facts.

“The Chamber ignored the fact that legislation includes provisions for a process regarding the way in which workers can exercise their right to remove themselves from dangerous work situations.

A key example is the establishment of Health and Safety Committees, to ensure specific provisions are only used for the purposes for which they were actually intended,” he said.

Warwick said companies in the oil and gas industry have refused to establish Health and Safety Committees and this is a major complaint by workers throughout the energy sector. “Therefore, it cannot be acceptable that companies are allowed to violate the OSH Act, and when workers take action to save their life and limb, they are the ones who are punished,” he insisted.

He said none of the business chambers or organizations seem to realize that the company (BP) is “leveraging for greater concessions” from Trinidad and Tobago, for continued investment and cited a statement by the Downtown Owners and Merchants Association (DOMA) which, “literally begs BP to return, thereby giving that entity even more leveraging power.”

Sea Lots resident Kenneth Browne and his ex-wife Melissa Browne, of Carenage, returned to the Port of Spain Magistrates’ Court yesterday before Deputy Chief Magistrate Maria Busby Earle-Caddle accused of committing the capital offence sometime between March 8 and March 16 at Sea Lots.

Kenneth Browne, who is also the father of Joseph’s four-year-old daughter, faces an additional charge of illegally disposing a body.

It was their second appearance in court.

They first appeared on March 20 before then Chief Magistrate Marcia Ayers-Caesar, who has since been appointed a Judge of the Supreme Court.

When the matter was called in the Eight Magistrates’ Court, police prosecutor Insp Winston Dillon informed Deputy Chief Magistrate Busby Earle-Caddle that the officer who laid the charges needed about two weeks to have the file forwarded to the Office of the DPP.

The matter was adjourned to May 16. The Brownes are represented by attorney Criston J Williams.

WPC Joseph was reported missing on March 9 when she did not appear for work and relatives tried to contact her . Her body was found by a fisherman in the Gulf of Paria on March 16. Her cause of death could not be determined by the pathologist.

WPC Joseph was last attached to the Morvant Police Station and was the mother of a fouryear- old girl.

He did so on Thursday last and Magistrate Natalie Diop presiding in the San Fernando Magistrates’ court, heard yesterday that Ramjohn, of Union Road, Marabella, had his first conviction for driving under the infuence in 2010. In 2014, he had a second convition for a similar offence and he was again fined. He was also disqualified from driving for three years, however he petitioned the court and his permit was reinstated.

Yesterday, Ramjohn appeared before the magistrate on his third such offence to which he pleaded guilty. Diop fined him $15,000 or two years in jail and ordered him to pay $3,000 forthwith yesterday.

The magistrate told Ramjohn that upon a third conviction, a term of imprisonment is almost mandatory but due to his attorney’s plea that on his son’s death anniversary he became very aggrieved, she spared him going to jail.

Police last Thursday responded to a report of a vehicular accident shortly before midnight at Union Road, Marabella, involving Ramjohn. It was a minor accident, the court police prosecutor Sgt Kassieram Lutchman said. A breathalyser test however, revealed Ramjohn had exceeded the alcoholic limit by 42 mg per 100 ml of breath. Attorney Shamilla Michelle Gopaul told Diop that Ramjohn is in dire need of counselling because two years ago his son died.

“And it appears he needs help not for alcohol consumption, but for depression, for life has dealt him a harsh blow.” The attorney admitted that in 2010, Ramjohn was convicted for driving under the influence for which he was fined.

And in 2014, Ramjohn was again before a magistrate for a similar offence and he was fined and disqualified.

Diop told Ramjohn, who is a mechanic by trade, a third conviction makes it mandatory that the court disqualify him from driving permanently.

She granted him two months to pay the balance of the $12,000.

Community service for the coastguardsman would be determined by the Probation Office in San Fernando, Magistrate Natalie Diop said.

The magistrate also read to Clement, of Chatham Village, near Cedros, three other charges including: resisting arrest, disorderly behaviour and playing loud music in his vehicle while it was in motion. The seaman pleaded not guilty to those charges.

The court police prosecutor Sgt Kassieram Lutchman, told the magistrate when police had asked Clement what he had to drink, he said that he had four drinks of Johnny Walker, four beers “and some other drinks”.

He was taken to the San Fernando Police Station where he was administered a breathalyser test which gave a reading of 56 mg per 100 mm of breath. The legal limit is 35 mg. Attorney Adele Acosta pleaded with Diop not to impose any penalty that would impact on Clement’s life as a coastguard saying he will be disciplined by the TT Coastguard for breaking the law. A petty officer was present in court and noted the proceedings as it unfolded.

Attorney Acosta further pleaded that Clement was a disciplined officer in the Coast Guard and last year, he was commended for oustanding performance. “Your worship, a petty officer is present in court and Your Worship, he stands to be penalised. This will prevent him from continuing certain projects in the Coast Guard,” Acosta said. The prosecutor did not have a tracing and requested from the magistrate an adjournment to conduct one in order to determine whether Clement has a past criminal record.

The matter was postponed to May 18 and Clement was allowed continuing bail. Diop, however, instructed Clement to report yesterday to the Probation Office at Harris Street where officers there will begin the process of determining what community service they can enroll him in.