Anderson Carty- Bench Warrant Fiasco

1

                                                   by  RAWLSTON POMPEY

Frequently, in life’s unending struggles, it has been the experience that out of expediency, has come ‘Positional Opportunities.’ No matter the profession, occupation or discipline, people so opportune by such expediency, were known to have caused adversities to be visited upon those faced with a predicament. They were often seen as heartless, insensitive and uncompassionate. For others, their hearts could be saturated with frustration, and lives overflowed with misery. Even so, there shall come a time when man’s destiny shall come upon him, thereby bringing him to the realization that there are such words as ‘Reason and Conscience.’

PERSPECTIVE

This featured and in dept commentary, is prosecutorally and professionally-based. Thus, it provides a ‘Professional Perspective’ pertinent to a particular incident. It speaks to practical experience and knowledge of ‘Court Procedures.’ It seeks only to lend an understanding to the average minds and attempts to dispel possible harbored notions that the Courts are a nightmare. It focuses on: (a) ‘…Bench Warrants: (b) …When it might reasonably and justifiably be issued: and (d) …Procedures to be followed by Law enforcement personnel. It also looks at the pertinent statutory provisions as contained in the ‘Magistrate’s Code of Procedure Act (MCPA) [Chapter 255].

COMPENSATORY CONSEQUENCES

Learning of the developments in the ‘Bench Warrant Fiasco’ is one thing. Seeing documented contents of a ‘Warrant When Summons Is Disobeyed,’ circumstances under which it may have been issued and the end result after execution, could best be described as; (a) ‘…Over exuberance; (b) …A cardinal error of judgment: yet (c) …An unforgiveable act of attrition, inferentially influence by docility emanating from the environment; (e) …Professional and procedural ignorance, makes it an inexcusable exhibition of incompetence with the potential for regrettable ‘Compensatory Consequences’ to an innocent citizenry for apparent injudicious actions.

MAGISTERIALLY FRIGHTENING

The issuance of ‘Bench Warrants’ was never dependent upon the complaint of a Litigant/Plaintiff.’ For this commentary, that which appeared ‘Magisterially Frightening,’ has been the part of the information that states; ‘Complaint was made on the 25th August, 2021 by Althea James, attorney for Sylvia Francis that ‘Anderson Carty herein called the Defendant failed to attend the St. John’s Magistrate’s Court’ after being on notice of the Court date.’ What was professionally known and the magisterial practice then obtained, was that it has always been the adjudicators function to make ‘Fixtures’ for either; (a) ‘…Civil hearings: (b) …Summary criminal trials: or (c) …Criminal (Committal Proceedings).

MEANS TEST- CIVIL DECISIONS

Since Courts are not usually seen as harshly distressing in ‘Civil Decisions,’ exceptional circumstances often persuaded adjudicators to temper their decisions with compassion. A universally well-established adjudicating practice, has been to avail oneself of the consideration of a ‘Means Test.’ This however, was often dependent upon a number of critical factors, including a Litigants ability to pay. While a discretion power resides with adjudicators, displaying demeanor or attitude capable of being interpreted as contemptuous, in mixed-up mood a debtor may see an adjudicator dropping the ‘Gavel’ with telling effect. This appeared to have been the experience of ‘Litigant/Defendant Anderson Carty’ [January 17, 2022].

THE JAIL ACT

When litigious proceedings were completed against him, craving the Court’s indulgence in considering a ‘Means Test,’ ‘His Worship Craig Christopher,’ instead read him ‘The Jail Act.’ In earnest persuasion, he reportedly craved the indulgence of the Court for consideration of a ‘Means Test.’ Seemingly not even for fear of ‘Covid-19’ had ‘His Worship’ budged. When advanced arguments were over, the Defendant’ was said to have found himself closer to ‘Prison than Heaven.’ Given his clearly ‘Unlawful Detention,’ there may been no lawful or justifiable reason by the arresting Court Bailiff and Police officer’ regarding his accommodation in the ‘Criminal Suspects Detention Cell’ [January 17, 2022].

REPENTERS AND CHAPLIN

That which disconcertingly dangles, has been a ‘Court Order’ for the settlement of some ‘EC$24, 200,’ with a ‘default institutionalized residency of 14-days,’ somewhere in the vicinity of; (i) ‘…A Fire Station; (ii). …Printery: (iii) …School; and (iv) …A Bank.’ This shall be settled on or before ‘February 28, 2022.’ Among the religious institutions that was not in immediate view was the historic ‘St. John’s Anglican Cathedral.’ The closest bodies to him will have been the ‘Jailhouse Repenters,’ while the closest religious person he may have seen is assigned ‘Prison Chaplin Canon Richardson.’

LITIGIOUSLY PROBLEMATIC

Regionally, Law enforcement personnel were often seen as ‘Mules.’ Seemingly when servicing ‘Magistrates Courts,’ some officers appeared to have harbored belief that powers reside with ‘Magistrates’ in directing them to function as ‘Court Bailiffs.’ When such happens, such may seem as being tantamount to a reckless exercise of ‘Magisterial Power.’ This may very well have been the case when offending ‘Litigant/Defendant Anderson Carty’ was reportedly evicted and snatched from his the previously occupied residence. He was then either ordered, instructed or directed to be held in a ‘Police Detention Cell’ [ANR: January 17, 2022]. In an era of constitutional enlightenment, ‘non-Service’ could prove ‘Litigiously Problematic.’

SERVICE OF PROCESS

It requires no superior intellect in understanding certain Court procedures or formalities, be it ‘Civil and Criminal Jurisdictions.’ Those that have responsibility for serving these Courts, know that in ‘Proving Service of Process,’ this necessarily means a call to the ‘Witness Stand.’ This requires subscription to ‘an Oath or Affirmation’ as to the ‘Mode or Notification.’ Clerks to these Courts shall then hand to ‘Servers-Police/Bailiffs’ the ‘Endorsed Return Summons.’ He shall scrutinize it for; (a) ‘…Date: (b) …Time: (c) …Place: and (d) …Signature.’ Even so, ‘Magistrates,’ mindful of the personal liberty of a ‘Defendant,’ may refuse the application and there, ordered the issuance of a ‘Defendant Summons,’ and give a ‘New Fixture’ for hearing trial date.

POLICE OFFICERS – COURT BAILIFFS

From procedural ignorance and inexcusable stupidity, a space in a ‘Police Detention Cell.’ This may have been the experience of many considered to have absconded the Court’s jurisdiction. That which shall be known, is that ‘Police officers’ are not trained or employed as ‘Court Bailiffs.’ Conversely, ‘Court Bailiffs’ are not ‘Police officers’ and do not enforce ‘Criminal Law. While Court-issued authority allows for arrest and immediate conveyance to Magistrates, no power resides with Bailiffs to detain and hold in any ‘Police Detention’ facility, ‘absconders, disobedient defendants and defaulting litigants’ with obligations to be compliant with stipulated Orders of the Court.’

SECURITY- BREACHES OF PEACE

Except in providing ‘Security Assistance to Bailiffs’ in performing duties away from the precinct of Courts, Police officers, irrespective of rank, have no jurisdiction in ‘Civil Matters.’ Their presence is primarily to ‘Prevent Breaches of Peace.’ Among the ‘Bailiff’s duties are service of; (i) ‘…Summons: (ii) …Notices: (iii) …Other documents; (iv) … Enforcing Eviction and executing related Orders.’ Most enlightening, however, is ‘Arrest under Order of Committal Summons.’ Bailiffs shall exercise the ‘Court’s Authority’ by ‘TAKING’ persons arrested to prison’ [Magistrates Code of Procedure Act: Chapter 255: Amendment Act: No. 2 of 2014].

DISSENT AND DISGUST

None may deny that the ‘Judiciary and Magistracy’ are essential institutions for those that have been aggrieved to seek redress. None shall deny that justice shall be manifestly seen to be done. While the judicial institution might be looked at in such light, even with its availability, ready accessibility has financially made it inaccessible. Before some judicial officers, the indigent unrepresented litigants- ‘Plaintiffs or Defendants’ have, for want of ‘Legal Fees,’ were often seen as experiencing horrors. Very little the ‘Chief Justice’ will have known of their plight. There are those that ‘Judicial Officers’ have caused litigants, defendants, accused persons and displeased attorneys to quietly express ‘Dissent and Disgust.’

CHERISHED RIGHT

Then in the wider society, law-abiding members have regarded a small minority of ‘Judicial officers’ as exhibiting behavior of Courts euphemistically being presided over by ‘Kangaroos.’ That which shall be remembered by ‘Administrators of Justice,’ is that in a democracy, it has always been the ‘Cherished Right’ of aggrieved persons and generally, the law-abiding people of society to cause the ‘Judiciary or the Magistracy’ to be visited upon those that have committed both civil wrongs against them. Adjudicators need gently, brazenly or ineptly, need no reminder that there is such a legal concept called ‘The Principle of Natural Justice.’

CIVIL COURT RECORDS

Speaking to such principle, it prompts attention to the case of ‘Litigant/Defendant Anderson Carty.’ He seemingly came up on an adjudicator who clearly was not a ‘Mongoose nor a Kangaroo.’ Though seemingly of his own making, given his ordeal, if nothing else, well kept ‘Civil Court Records’ shall not ‘Fail’ to identify the ‘Deponent’ who appeared before ‘Civil Court Magistrate, His Worship Craig Christopher’ and purportedly sworn to information that ‘Litigant/Defendant Anderson Carty’ had ‘Failed to attend the Civil Court.’ It shall also not show the issuing Magistrate of a Summons for his initial appearance. Moreover, it shall not ‘Fail’ to show that a ‘Warrant When Summons Was Disobeyed’ was issued for his arrest.

BAIL REVOCATION

It is called a ‘Bench Warrant,’ since it is issued by a ‘Judge or Magistrate,’ while he/she is sitting on the ‘Bench’ in a Court Room. Such ‘Warrant’ was often issued when Defendants violated Court Rules. More particularly, such might be issued when ‘Bail Conditions’ had been breached. This often involved; (a) ‘…Failing to report to Police Station: (b) …Interference with Witnesses; or (c) …When Defendants failed to answer to their names or attend on a ‘Court-Fixed Date.’ Absconders or breachers of any ‘Bail Conditions,’ risk ‘Revocation of Bail.’ The case of previously convict/fraudster, ‘Janice Samuel’ makes the point’ [ANR: August 28, 2021].

SERVICE OR NOTIFICATION

Among her Court running were; (a) ‘…Failing to report to Police Station; and (b) …Failing to attend Fixtures of the Court.’ This was usually preceded with the ‘Peace Officer-Police/Bailiff’ being called to the ‘Witness Stand’ to attest to ‘Service or Notification.’ Authoritatively, such ‘Warrant’ when circumstances so dictate and justifiably issued, unmistakably states; ‘…And on Oath has been made that the Defendant was duly served with the Summons, but did not appear, and that such Complaint is true.’ This appears to have provided the basis for the issuance. From professional knowledge, practice and experience, it was on this information an adjudicator would have issued such Warrant.

EXPECTING THE EXPECTED

Way back into the ‘Cosbert Cumberbatch Era,’ that which was well known is that, it was always within magisterial knowledge when a ‘Litigant/Defendant,’ in ‘Civil Proceedings,’ might be considered ‘an Absconder.’ In matters of criminality, ‘Police Court Prosecutors’ may apply to the adjudicating Magistrate for the issuance of a ‘Warrant by the Bench.’ Even so, adjudicators not so minded, may refuse an application and instead give ‘New Fixtures’ for appearance. When so inclined, absconders under the jurisdiction of the Court, could ‘Expect the Expected. Such Warrant will have been issued and ‘Absconders’ dealt with, as the Court deems necessary to ensure appearance.

ISSUANCE OF BENCH WARRANTS

Those that sit on ‘Park Benches,’ watching in amazement, yet with deep fascination, tiny birds that flew by. Then some seem perplexingly perched on tree branches chirping or singing ‘Tweet, Tweet.’ These, obviously, are not the ‘Three Little Birds’ legendary ‘Jamaican Reggae icon, Robert Nestor ‘Bob’ Marley’ saw sitting on his door steps’ [YouTube]. These are neither musicians nor song writers, thus, knows no melody or music. Even for these ‘Park Bench Sitters,’ there comes a time when they shall face another set of people that sit on ‘Benches in the Judiciary or Magistracy.’ Their singing is all about arrest and possible subjection to sanctions of the Court and with recklessness abandon, ‘Unlawful Detention’ in a Police Detention Cell’ [Anderson Carty: Real News: January 17, 2022].

RUDE AWAKENING

In the ‘Anderson Carty Bench Warrant Fiasco,’ given variance with the ‘Date of Complaint’ [August 25, 2021] and the ‘Date of Issuance’ of ‘Warrant When Summons Is Disobeyed’ [January 17, 2022], an issuing Magistrate may very well find ‘Rude Awakening,’ respecting subsequent developments. The ‘Authoritative Words’ as contained thereon have been ‘…You are, therefore, hereby commanded to bring the Defendant before this Court sitting at St. John’s forthwith to answer to the said Complaint’ [WWSD: January 17, 2022].

INDIGNITIES OF DETENTION

This authoritatively commanded the appointed and assigned ‘Court Bailiff’ to arrest and convey him back to the issuing ‘Magistrate sitting on the Bench’ with endorsed copy of execution. Instead, the Defendant was avoidably subjected to the ‘Indignities of Detention.’ Accepting that the ‘Court-assigned Bailiff’ had executed the ‘Warrant,’ in the absence of ‘Reasonable Suspicion’ of the commission of a crime, he had been inexplicably, if not unlawfully held in a ‘Criminal Detention Cell.’  The ‘Court’s Bailiff’ had seemingly abdicated his assigned duty and foisted the ‘Litigant/Defendant’ upon an officer, clearly starved of procedural knowledge.

PERVERSE DECISIONS

Not infrequently, ‘Perceive Perverse Court Decisions’ often have the effect of inviting lawlessness among the citizenry. In an address to open the ‘Law Year- 2012-2013], Chief Justice, Dame Janice Pereira delivered a most profound address to ‘Judicial officers.’ In her advocacy, she spoke to a ‘System of Justice’ that is ‘Free and Fair.’ It might also be added, ‘Free from fear and indignation.’ These are among that which help to engender feelings of decisional acceptance by all parties; ‘Plaintiffs and Defendants and Appellants and Respondents.’

RULE OF LAW – BASTION OF HOPE

She posited that; ‘A free society exists only when governed by the ‘Rule of Law,’ while ‘Judicial efficiency and integrity are essential elements to such rule’ [Law Year: 2012-2013]. Mindful of the way how ‘Justice’ may not have been administrated or dispensed, she spoke fervently to her vision in seeing the ‘OECS Courts’ as the ‘Bastion of Hope.’ Then with optimism and confidence, she spoke of an envisioned judicial system that ‘eschews inequity and embraces equal access and treatment to all.’ This appears consistent with the ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ [1948].

COURT FIXTURES

Not infrequently, ‘Court Bailiffs and Orderlies’ appear to be confused over the duty of Magistrates in giving ‘Court Fixtures’ for hearing (Civil Jurisdiction) and trial (Criminal Jurisdiction). That has been an established function of ‘Sitting Magistrates.’ Even as some people attempted to befuddle their brain, and that of others with the issuance of ‘Bench Warrants,’ these mostly relate to persons awaiting ‘Criminal Trials,’ and have ‘Absconded the Court’s Jurisdiction.’ In ‘Civil Proceedings,’ it has never been treated in the same manner.

DIARY-RECORDED FIXTURES

That which was professionally known is that whenever a ‘Litigant or Criminal Defendants,’ made first appearances, the duty of the Court is to give ‘Fixtures’ for the next appearance. Even with ‘Diary-Recorded Fixtures,’ none, including adjudicators and attorneys may deny that lengthy delays had often resulted in lapses in memory. Conversely, it has also been the clerical duty ‘Clerks to Magistrates’ for ‘Civil Hearings,’ to prepare the ‘List of Civil Cases’ and give to ‘Court or Summons Orderlies’ to notify litigants or defendants of such ‘Court Fixtures’ and such ‘Civil Hearings.’ Only competency and efficiency and effective ‘Staff Management’ may lessen the issuance of ‘Bench Warrants.’

SCHEDULE FEES

If it was not so, then the statutory provision of ‘Schedule Fees’ as contained in the ‘Magistrate’s Code of Procedure Act’ [Chapter 255], may never have stipulated a particular function of ‘Court-appointed Bailiffs.’ They shall serve litigants, then take the ‘Witness Stand’ to be deponed as to the ‘Mode of Service.’ Embarrassingly, statutorily stipulate ‘Service Fees’ do not exceed ‘EC$ 50.00’ [MCPAA: No. 2 of 2014].

MCPA AMENDMENTS

Courts, therefore shall be mindful of the way they deal with ‘Litigating Parties.’ In researching for this commentary, the following was revealed the enactment of the ‘Magistrate’s Code of Procedure Act’ [1869[. It had seen numerous Amendments with Statutory Instruments made up to 1989.’ Then the Act’ was eventually revised [RE: 1992]. These were followed by more recent ‘Sectionalized Amendments.’ Most notably have been the ‘MCP (Amendments) Act [No. 2 of 2014: and No. 26 of 2020]. The latter saw the Magisterial jurisdiction in ‘Civil Proceedings’ with ‘Judgment Sums Increased’ from ‘EC$15, 000 to EC$ 25, 000.’ To those without a sense of value and purpose, this

ADMINISTRATORS OF JUSTICE

Incidentally, their function is the issuance of ‘Bench Warrants’ for the arrest and detention of those consider absconders. Even with the deadly ‘Coronavirus-19,’ litigants appear more fearful of some, than infectious virus. They shall all know that even as they so sit on Benches, and make litigants cry, there comes a time when destiny shall come upon them. They shall know that as ‘Administrators of Justice,’ theirs have been the ‘Judicial Functions’ of; (a) ‘…Hearing and determine cases, each on its merit: (b) …Listen keenly to, and objectively summarize the totality of evidence adduced by all parties; (c) …Give proper directions to themselves; and (d) …Make informed, rational judicial decisions that shall stand the scrutiny of ‘Interpretative Courts’ far superior to theirs. Among the lot, however, are those with ‘Reason and Conscience.’

LITIGIOUSLY PROBLEMATIC

A ‘Bench Warrant’ is not just a document, but a ‘Judicial Document.’ A person so arrested on such ‘Warrant’ shall be given the original copy. This is consistent with the constitutional provisions that states; ‘…Any person who is arrested or detained shall be informed orally and in writing in language that he understands of the reason for his arrest or detention’ [CO: 1981: Section 5 (2)]. The duplicate copy of such ‘Warrant’ is returnable endorsed by the arresting ‘Peace officer- Police or Bailiff,’ to the Clerk to issuing Court. The subsequent actions of both an apparent misdirected or misguided ‘Court Bailiff and Police Officer,’ call into question an inferential possible behind the scene innocence or professional ignorance.

PEACE OFFICERS- EMPOWERMENT

It is instructive to note that recent sectionalized amendments define ‘Peace Officers’ as; (i) ‘…Police officers: (ii) …Bailiff: and (iii) …Process servers employed by an attorney-at-law’ [MCP (Amendment) Act: Section 3: No. 2 of 2014]. Consistent with, and guided by statutory powers residing with ‘Magistrates,’ legitimately or illegitimately issued ‘Bench Warrants empower ‘ALL Peace officers’ to arrest persons named therein. The conditionality is a ‘Magisterial Command’ that the arrested be forthwith conveyed to, and brought before ‘Sitting Magistrates.’  This has been the experience of ‘Litigant/Defendant Anderson Carty.’

ARBITRARY ARREST AND DETENTION

Not only that these ‘Amendments’ may have been overlooked or had escaped the minds of many offending litigants. This may have been experience of ‘Litigant/Defendant Anderson Carty.’ That which appears highly suspect, has been the reason stated on a ‘Warrant When Summons Is Disobeyed.’ This was purportedly issued within the ‘Magistracy.’ It was given clearly for the offspring of writers of social commentaries and siblings of musicians to understand. It states; ‘…No one shall be subjected to ‘Arbitrary Arrest and Detention’ [UDHR: Article 9: 1948]. They shall know that in this jurisdiction, it is ‘Justice is for all, and not for some.’

LITIGIOUS TROUBLES

Whatever had been his ‘Litigious Troubles,’ the Litigant/Defendant, in ‘Civil proceedings’ appeared to have found himself in three ‘Awkward Positions.’ That which research has revealed have been; (i) ‘…An inability in discharging tenancy obligations; (ii) …A Magistrate that appeared not to have been in any mood that speaks to the endowment of conscience and reasonableness; and (iii) …An adjudicator whose tolerance he may have unwittingly trespassed.’ Since there is no boundlessness inf human patience, tolerance and understanding, litigants-’ ‘Plaintiffs and Defendants and officers of the Court’ shall all know that none shall attempt to persuade adjudicators to climb to the summit on the ‘Rugged Side of the Mountain.’

TENANCY DISPUTE

Parliament anticipated that some adjudicators might adopt the character of ‘Judges’ that are to be seen as ‘Dread.’  Compounding this, is survival in a land where the affluent speaks to it as ‘Paradise on Earth,’ while misery was, for the most part, the plight of the indigent. So, for many struggling to survive, or simply to get by, as some may attest, life itself was an uphill battle. Even for ‘Litigant/Defendant Anderson Carty,’ this seemed to have been among his litigious troubles. Research has shown that a prolonged and unresolved ‘Tenancy Dispute’ was said to be the center of ‘Contention and Confusion.’ Incidentally, such had not directly involved the landlord or a practicing attorney, but a Court-recognized ‘Power-of- Attorney.’

HELL IN THE MAGISTRACY

Consequent upon such dispute, he appeared not only to have seen ‘Hell on Earth,’ but also to experience what ‘Hell’ was like within the ‘Magistracy.’ A ‘Labor Relations Consultant/Practitioner,’ and like the vast majority of the population in a lingering ‘Pandemic,’ dried up source of income and limited disposable income, life appears not to have been that which he may have anticipated. He may find solace in the singing of an artiste; ‘…When they seek to put you in a dungeon, ‘Jah-Jah’ will make a way out for you: and …When victimization and frustration make you sad, ‘Jah-Jah’ love will make you glad.’ With that which precariously lies ahead, only immediate access to disposable income could save him from entering the dungeon.

APPELLATE CLAUSE

Moreover, likened to the song ‘Like a tree planted by the waters: …I shall not be moved,’ and indeed, he was immovable. The Magistrate appeared firmly ‘Anchored in his Judgment,’ that he shall pay or go in for a short stay. It may have been for their sense of perception that they have inserted this ‘Appellate Clause’ in the ‘Magistrate’s Code of Procedure (Amendment) Act.’ It states; ‘…Where an appeal is filed against a; (i) ‘…Decision: (ii) …Judgment; or (iii) …Order’ of a Magistrate, the appellant may seek a ‘Stay of Execution’ of any of these. The law provides that ‘within 7 days of filing the Appeal,’ he may apply to the Magistrate for a ‘Stay of Execution.’ The Magistrate has a ‘Discretionary Power’ to grant or refuse. In the event of the latter, the law also provides for application to made by the ‘High Court of Justice’ [Section 18 (1 & 2): MCP (Amendment) Act: No. 2 of 2014].

CRIMINAL TRIALS

Prosecutorally, for ‘Criminal Trials,’ ‘Clerks to the Magistrates’ would present the ‘Court Fixtures’ to ‘Police Prosecutors.’ They in turn are duty-bound to cause the ‘Police office Clerk’ to sought and obtain related ‘Case Files.’ Their clerical duty to prepare ‘Criminal Case Lists’ for (i) ‘…Police Court Prosecutors: (ii) …Court or Summons Orderlies: and (iii) …Magistrates and their Clerks.’ Given this then established practice, it was never the duty of ‘Magistrates, Clerks or Court Bailiffs’ to inform ‘Litigants or Criminal Defendants,’ when they shall appear before the Courts for ‘Civil Hearings or Criminal Trials.’

INSTITUTING CIVIL PROCEEDINGS

Procedurally, for the purpose of ‘Instituting Civil Proceedings’ against a ‘Defendant,’ a ‘Plaintiff’ shall apply to the Magistrate for a Summons. Such Summons shall; (a) ‘…Contain the ‘Particulars of Claim; (b) …Of the Order claimed, shall be endorsed on the back thereof by the Magistrate: (c) …Endorsed Summons shall be filed by the Plaintiff: and (d) …A certified copy issued to him; (e) …Certified copy shall be served on the Defendant by a ‘Peace officer’ Such might be delivered; (i) ‘…In person to the Defendant; or (ii) …His attorney-at-law on record.’ [Section 14: Section 148 of MCA: 255]. Mere ‘Verbal Notification’ is clearly not sufficient to constitute ‘Disobedience to Summons.’ From professional knowledge, this requires ‘Evidence of Service.’

WAYS OF SERVICE

Anticipating that a Defendant might not be easily found, the provisions provide for delivery to; (i) ‘…A person of the Defendant’s last known address or place of residence; or (ii) …To the Defendant’s employer or his department’s head or supervisor at the Defendant’s place of employment.’ Parliament foreseeing grave difficulties with Service, also make this proviso; ‘…Where the ‘Peace officer’ attests that Service cannot be effected in the manner referred to, the Magistrate may direct that the Defendant be served in a manner which will reasonably enable the Defendant to become fully aware of the contents of the Summons Sections 14 (1 and 2)].

SERVICE OF CRIMINAL PROCESSES

Though not so specifically written, it shall be given clearly to understand that Parliament knew that ‘Police officers’ shall concern themselves with; (a) ‘…Service of Criminal Processes: while (b) …Bailiffs are concerned with Civil or non-criminal matters: and (c) …Process Servers are concerned with matters that attorneys or law firms have engaged their services in a private capacity, yet recognized by the Courts.’ Contrastingly, while the services of the latter ‘Peace officers’ are statutorily stipulated as ‘Service Fees’ to be paid to those so engaged [Section 4], except by ‘Secret Moonlighting,’ Police officers are not so statutorily recognized.

ROWDY LITIGANTS

Since Law enforcement personnel have no jurisdiction in ‘Civil Proceedings,’ should ‘Rowdy Litigants’ stepped out of line, ‘Moonlighters’ run the risk of being declared not to be ‘Acting in the lawful execution of duty’ [Section 38: Small Charges Act: Chapter 405: and Sections 22 and 23: Police Act: Chapter 330]. Moreover, law enforcement acting outside that which are contained in the ‘Police Act,’ and have been seen as have made serious ‘Litigious Decisions,’ they also run the risk of being litigated against, either in their persona or jointly with the; (i) ‘…Commissioner of Police’ [Constitution Order: 1981: Section 5 (7)]: and (ii) …Government’s Chief Legal Adviser and Attorney General’ [Section 82].

CONCLUSION

Not only has the exercise of ‘Judicial and Magisterial Powers’ were invariably seen as starved for justification, but also often seen as being exercised overly-officious, arbitrary, excessively and punitively. Given these irrefutable facts; (a) ‘…A complaint was reportedly made to the Court by ‘Althea James’- August 25, 2021; (b) …That ‘Anderson Carty’ failed to attend Court: (b) …Was a criminal charge pending trial against him? (c) …Did the Power of Attorney Althea James solemnly swear to the information contain therein? (d) …Did the Court issue a ‘Warrant When Summons is Disobeyed.’ It begs these questions; (i) ‘…On whose authority/instructions did the Police officer act? (ii) …Was the defendant taken before the issuing Magistrate to answer a charge/s? (iv) …Who was the ‘Peace officer-’ Police officer, (Bailiff, Process Server) executed and arrested him? (v) …Was the officer acting in the execution of duty? Finally, (vi) …What lawful reasons dictated that such Police officer shall cause him to be held in a Criminal Suspect Detention Cell?’ ***

CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHATSAPP GROUP

1 COMMENT

  1. A very embarassing photo. I hope he gets everything sorted out. He talks like he is a ´money man´who owned his own house.

Comments are closed.