What are the duties of a doctor in the UK?

 The duties of a doctor in the UK can vary depending on their specialty, but generally include the following:

•     Diagnosing and treating illnesses and injuries: Doctors are responsible for examining patients, reviewing their medical histories, and making a diagnosis based on their symptoms and test results. They then create a treatment plan, which may include prescribing medication, recommending surgery, or referring the patient to a specialist.

•     Monitoring patients: Doctors monitor their patients' progress and adjust treatment plans as needed. They may order additional tests or procedures to determine the effectiveness of the treatment and make changes as necessary.

•     Preventive care: Doctors provide guidance on maintaining good health and preventing illness, including advice on diet, exercise, and lifestyle changes.

•     Medical research: Doctors may engage in medical research to advance the understanding of diseases and treatments, and to develop new therapies.
  

•     Supervising medical staff: Doctors may supervise other medical professionals, such as nurses and physician assistants, to ensure that patients receive high-quality care.

•     Continuing education: Doctors are required to stay up-to-date with medical advances and technologies by attending conferences and training sessions.

•     Record-keeping: Doctors are responsible for keeping accurate and complete medical records for their patients.

•     Ethical responsibilities: Doctors are bound by ethical and professional standards, including maintaining patient confidentiality and avoiding conflicts of interest.

Overall, the primary duty of a doctor in the UK is to provide high-quality medical care to their patients, while upholding professional and ethical standards.

Milking those on death's door

This is an open letter to the Minister of Health.

A friend of mine needs open-heart surgery. This has been already been paid for by the Ministry of Health and the services for surgery passed to Caribbean Heart Care, a private supplier of health services to the Ministry of Health.

What baffles me is why Caribbean Hard Care is further charging my friend $10,000 privately for the use of a cell saver machine, to be used during surgery to recycle the patient’s own blood.

 

Fast Facts on cell saver machines:

·         Patients end up with healthier blood when their own blood is recycled and given back to them during heart surgery.

·         The more units of banked blood a patient received, the more red cell damage researchers found.

·         The damage renders the cells less able to squeeze through a body’s smallest capillaries and deliver oxygen to tissues.

·         Blood is recycled using machine called a cell saver, which cleanses it and separates out the red blood cells to return to patient.

·         Recycling own blood costs less than using banked blood.

 

This is clearly – and without any shame – an effort to ‘milk’ more money out of the patient. I have a number of problems with this.

1.    Contractually, if Caribbean Heart Care cannot provide the full services to the Ministry of Health, then it has no business accepting contracts. The opportunity should be given to other entities to bid for the opportunity to provide full services necessary for the surgery.

2.    If Caribbean Heart Care must charge extra ‘service charges’ on top of the price quoted to the Ministry of Health, then this should be made plain to both the patient and the Ministry of Health prior to the surgery being scheduled.

3.    Once the surgery scheduled, it is prejudicial to the patient to be asked to pay such a huge sum on short notice. Most patients who rely on the Ministry of Health to cover the surgery costs are on low income – else they would have done the surgery privately. To fork over $10,000 on short notice is Caribbean Heart Care’s unconscionable opportunity to take advantage of a life and death situation to fatten its own coffers.

Sadly, this appears to be a new development in the practice of providing surgery from Caribbean Heart Care. I say this because in 2017, a close relative also had open heart surgery from the self-same heart Care and there were no additional costs. One can only wonder what changed in the past 5 years.

The big question remains – is the Ministry of Health and the Minister of Health aware of Caribbean Heart Care charging these extra ‘fees’? If the answer to this is yes, why is this allowed to happen? Why does the ministry not cover the full fees, considering that most of the victims held to ransom by Caribbean Heart Care cannot afford to pay these extortionate sums?

I look forward to a full explanation from the Minister of Health, but you will forgive me for not holding my breath lest I end up 6 feet under.

TTPS rising

I am pleased that the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service (TTPS) is pleased with their ‘100%’ rise in detection rate for murders. According to Deputy Commissioner for Intelligence and Investigations McDonald Jacob:

"In the first four and a half months for 2020, we had solved 20 murders but from middle of May to date we have solved 21 murders, showing a 100 per cent improvement in our detection rate.” [Newsday, TV6 21/07/2020]

The other side of that ‘glossy’ statistic is not so rosy however.

For years the murder detection/solve rate has been less than 10%. No lie. I have been monitoring this since 2007, right here on this blog. Typically, the ‘solve rate’ hovers between 4% to 6%.

This year, 2020, TTPS has risen to heights hitherto unseen, by reaching a whopping 20% solve rate. Of course, that included the domestic cases where the perpetrators are usually known/caught at the scene/or surrender.

Looking at the bigger picture, there are some 252 murders to date, meaning the police only solved 16%. Now, remember that this is by police standards… Which is not very high apparently, since the conviction rate – which comes after the arrest and prosecution – is a mere 1% of the ‘solve rate’ quoted by TTPS. Has that sunk in yet? In other words, the police standard of evidence and detection is so low that a court finds it reliable only 1% of the time!

In the Latin Americas and Caribbean, Trinidad and Tobago ranks fourth in number of homicides per 100,000 citizens – 37.4. We are only surpassed by Venezuela, Jamaica and Honduras. [https://www.statista.com/statistics/947781/homicide-rates-latin-america-caribbean-country/]

I am pleased that TTPS is pleased. I am NOT pleased they are so easily pleased.

What I found out

During this 'lockdown', I've found out:

1) I still love cartoons.

2) I still enjoy reading, even expanding to non-academic books (°_~)

3) E-books are not so bad, and I can store about 10,000 on my phone. My personal library in my pocket.

4) Audiobooks are overrated. The joy is in reading, my friends.

5) I can still lose weight by adjusting my diet. Down 12 kg.

6) Bonsai can be difficult, more than children.

7) A high-speed internet connection protects your mental health. Who knew?

8) I can creatively invent new meals, and I'm a badass in the kitchen.

Incursions into impropriety have begun

I see that the first ‘incursions into impropriety’ have begun. Those small incursions that chip away at the rights of the individuals, with the approval of members of society who will never think that those incursions will turn against them later on. It is the beginning into the slide on a slippery slope, where people give up rights to authority to ‘feel safe’ but those rights are never ‘returned’. Nazi Germany, Zimbabwe, apartheid South Africa are some places that comes to mind.

The police ‘raid’ on the office of the Express newspaper is the perfect example of rights being trampled upon by authority figures. Freedom of expression (section 4(i)), and freedom of the press (section 4(k)) are both guaranteed rights under our Constitution. Now that the police can no longer bring charges under the Sedition Act, they are going for the vague charge of “Tipping Off” found in section 51 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2000.

A quick review of the Act showed that the charge of “Tipping off” is designed to prevent prejudice at trial for a person charged under the Act. Not to seize evidence which might prove detrimental to the person under investigation, for the purpose of withholding that evidence. No one has been charged in this matter. There is a possible defence under section 49 – a person, acting in a professional capacity and reporting through the relevant supervisory personnel at their workplace, is exempted from this charge.

A point to note: – there is no similar charge or section in the U.K.’s Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Instead, it prohibits authorities from breaching fundamental human rights even in the course of their investigations.

Coming back to the actual search and seizure of material at The Express’ office, there will of course be judicial review of the actions of the police, as ordered by the High Court. The court will decide on the balance between rights of the police under their investigative powers, and the rights of the press with respect to its freedom of expression and public interest in what was published.

The fact that the search was conducted under the authority of the very police officer suspected of and under investigation for financial impropriety is an important factor. Under what conditions and what evidence was presented for such a search warrant to be signed off and who was the judicial officer who gave authority to the warrant? These are questions that have to be answered. Search warrants cannot be granted – or rather, should not be granted – willy-nilly. There must be just cause, and evidence presented, for fundamental rights to be breached. The right to privacy is one such fundamental right.

Of course, we know that some judicial officers (magistrates and judges) merely rubber stamp the requests by police, without conducting due diligence questioning. It is these scenarios where the slippery slope comes into view. Eternal vigilance is demanded from those who live in this society.

Systems Thinking and Policing

Dear Gary Griffith,

Rather than ‘fight tooth and nail’ with your critics, who are obviously aware that you are failing in your responsibilities as Commissioner of Police (CoP) and as the top ‘crimefighter’, won’t it be better for you to ‘man up’ and recognise the nature of the beast you face? There is no need for you to reinvent the wheel – most of the work has been done for you already.

Police work is what is known as a ‘wicked problem’. Rittel& Webber (1973) identified the following 10 characteristics of a wicked problem:

1. No definitive formulation.
2. No stopping rules.
3. Solutions are not true or false, but better or worse.
4. No immediate and no ultimate test of a solution.
5. Solution is a “one-shot operation’; no opportunity to learn by trial and error, every attempt counts significantly.
6. Do not have a fixed number (or describable) of potential solutions, no set of permissible operations to employ.
7. Every wicked problem is essentially unique.
8. Every wicked problem can be a symptom of another problem (introducing complexity).
9. Wicked problems can be explained in numerous ways. Choice of explanation determines the nature of the problem’s solution (More on this later).
10. No right to be wrong (planners are liable for consequences of actions).

This brings me to the current problem-solving culture within the police service:

1.   there is a historical predominance of traditional hard systems thinking (HST) for problem solving.

2.   A culture of evidence-based decisions which place emphasis on numerical data and statistical validity such as randomised controlled trials (RCT).

3.   Often impossible to define problems, their causes and effects in absolute terms required.

4.   Police managers are increasingly required to respond to high variety, complex problem contexts.

5.   Low variety problem-solving approaches such as HST may not be sufficient in new environments.

6.   There needs to be greater understanding of systems’ contexts.

7.    Whole-systems approaches seek to balance HST, with appropriate emphasis on ‘softer’ problem structuring method e.g. SSM and VSM.

(Adapted from Newsome and Wiggett (2014)).

Crime fighting requires ‘systems thinking’: the ability to view the interconnectedness of the entire “criminal system” inclusive of the police force, in a holistic manner, and looking to see where applying leverage can have the most effect upon the entire system. It means taking into consideration different perspectives, from different stakeholders, applying methodology instead of methods and recognising the limitations imposed by the system itself and that sometimes there are no solutions.

Newsome and Wiggett (2014) identified 10 characteristics of systems thinking force:

1.   has clarity of purpose, derived from the service users’ perspectives (i.e. the public)

2.   adopts a whole systems approach, where interdependencies are understood.

3.   Has staff that understand the purpose, and their service responses are flexible to help achieve that purpose.

4.   understand that the greatest influences on performance and service are determined by the system.

5.   Understand the implications of setting boundaries within a system, and seeks to engage the whole system and make an improvement.

6.   Uses a variety of measurement and information to understand system performance, so as to identify learning and secure improvement.

7.   Understand the variety of its demand and how services can be optimised to satisfy this.

8.   Trust staff to apply informed professional judgement in support of achieving purpose.

9.   Has a culture of learning and continuous improvement where staff are empowered and equipped to understand and improve performance.

10.Respects and encourages the staff’s sense of vocation, and recognises the value of this in improving their well-being, commitment and whole system performance.

Traditional policing methods will have a high probability of failure in a modern society. That is not to say that they don’t have their place. But the police force must evolve, from the perceived “brute squad” to a highly effective thinking and performing unit. It will take a lot to make these changes – systems have a way of resisting change. You may want to investigate Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) and Viable Systems Model (VSM), a combination of which has been identified by Kinloch et al (2008) as a more effective tool.

If you want to succeed, rather than further alienating your detractors, identify the core problem you face, which is that your current police force is not effective in its present form and drastic changes are needed. Begin there.

Letter to CoP Gary Griffith

Dear Mr Griffith,

Before you respond, I ask you to consider some words first said at the end of World War II:

“Stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of the good than malice.

One may protest against evil; it can be exposed and, if need be, prevented by use of force.

Evil always carries within itself the germ of its own subversion in that it leaves behind in human beings at least a sense of unease.

Against stupidity we are defenceless.

• Neither protests nor the use of force accomplishes anything here;
• reasons fall on deaf ears;
• facts that contradict one’s prejudgment simply need not be believed
• – in such moments the stupid person even becomes critical –
• and when facts are irrefutable, they are just pushed aside as inconsequential, as incidental.

In all this the stupid person, in contrast to the malicious one, is utterly self-satisfied and, being easily irritated, becomes dangerous by going on the attack.

For that reason, greater caution is called for when dealing with a stupid person than with a malicious one.

Never again will we try to persuade the stupid person with reasons, for it is senseless and dangerous.” [Dietrich Bonhoeffer]

Consider the murder rate in Trinidad and Tobago – which has already reached 535 as of today 31 December 2019, with one day left to go – I put the following questions to you, as the person responsible for the keeping of the peace (control, prevention , and detection of crime) in Trinidad and Tobago.

1.   What percentage of all homicides in the last 5 years have been successfully prosecuted?

2.   Does the police service have sufficient manpower and resources to effectively investigate all cases on record and those to come?

3.   In its current configuration to date, is the police service effective in controlling or deterring serious crime? [A straight yes or no would do].

4.   If ‘yes’ to the above, what percentage reduction in the homicide rate can the public expect to see – per annum – averaged over the next 5 years? [Using the average annual rate over the preceding 5 years].

5.   Is the country being held to ransom by criminals?

6.   Can we expect the detection rate for crime, especially murders, to rise above 6% (as cited by the USA)?

Now, I have asked these questions before, in February 2018. As expected, no answers were supplied. Not that I expected any differently. I also noted – with utter dread, I might add – that you used words to the effect that we (the public) should be grateful that the murder total is not higher [Daily Express, 28 December 2019).

Over to you, Mr Griffith. Ordinary people will await your sensible answers to my questions. I ask you to lead your flock away from stupidity. You are invited to prove Bonhoeffer wrong.

Systems Thinking and the Police

Dear Gary Griffith,

Rather than ‘fight tooth and nail’ with your critics, who are obviously aware that you are failing in your responsibilities as Commissioner of Police (CoP) and as the top ‘crimefighter’, won’t it be better for you to ‘man up’ and recognise the nature of the beast you face? There is no need for you to reinvent the wheel – most of the work has been done for you already.

Police work is what is known as a ‘wicked problem’. Rittel & Webber (1973) identified the following 10 characteristics of a wicked problem:

1. No definitive formulation.
2. No stopping rules.
3. Solutions are not true or false, but better or worse.
4. No immediate and no ultimate test of a solution.
5. Solution is a “one-shot operation’; no opportunity to learn by trial and error, every attempt counts significantly.
6. Do not have a fixed number (or describable) of potential solutions, no set of permissible operations to employ.
7. Every wicked problem is essentially unique.
8. Every wicked problem can be a symptom of another problem (introducing complexity).
9. Wicked problems can be explained in numerous ways. Choice of explanation determines the nature of the problem’s solution (More on this later).
10. No right to be wrong (planners are liable for consequences of actions).

This brings me to the current problem-solving culture within the police service:

1. there is a historical predominance of traditional hard systems thinking (HST) for problem solving.
2. A culture of evidence-based decisions which place emphasis on numerical data and statistical validity such as randomised controlled trials (RCT).
3. Often impossible to define problems, their causes and effects in absolute terms required.
4. Police managers are increasingly required to respond to high variety, complex problem contexts.
5. Low variety problem-solving approaches such as HST may not be sufficient in new environments.
6. There needs to be greater understanding of systems’ contexts.
7. Whole-systems approaches seek to balance HST, with appropriate emphasis on ‘softer’ problem structuring method e.g. SSM and VSM.

(Adapted from Newsome and Wiggett (2014)).

Crime fighting requires ‘systems thinking’: the ability to view the interconnectedness of the entire “criminal system” inclusive of the police force, in a holistic manner, and looking to see where applying leverage can have the most effect upon the entire system. It means taking into consideration different perspectives, from different stakeholders, applying methodology instead of methods and recognising the limitations imposed by the system itself and that sometimes there are no solutions.

Newsome and Wiggett (2014) identified 10 characteristics of systems thinking force:

1. has clarity of purpose, derived from the service users’ perspectives (i.e. the public)
2. adopts a whole systems approach, where interdependencies are understood.
3. Has staff that understand the purpose, and their service responses are flexible to help achieve that purpose.
4. understand that the greatest influences on performance and service are determined by the system.
5. Understand the implications of setting boundaries within a system, and seeks to engage the whole system and make an improvement.
6. Uses a variety of measurement and information to understand system performance, so as to identify learning and secure improvement.
7. Understand the variety of its demand and how services can be optimised to satisfy this.
8. Trust staff to apply informed professional judgement in support of achieving purpose.
9. Has a culture of learning and continuous improvement where staff are empowered and equipped to understand and improve performance.
10. Respects and encourages the staff’s sense of vocation, and recognises the value of this in improving their well-being, commitment and whole system performance.

Traditional policing methods will have a high probability of failure in a modern society. That is not to say that they don’t have their place. But the police force must evolve, from the perceived “brute squad” to a highly effective thinking and performing unit. It will take a lot to make these changes – systems have a way of resisting change. You may want to investigate Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) and Viable Systems Model (VSM), a combination of which has been identified by Kinloch et al (2008) as a more effective tool.

If you want to succeed, rather than further alienating your detractors, identify the core problem you face, which is that your current police force is not effective in its present form and drastic changes are needed. Begin there.

The Prime Minister and the Judiciary

The Trinidad and Tobago Newsday had a big, bold headline “PM promises justice on time”. The article went on to list some of Dr Rowley’s promises – “the public will see some “drastic changes” in the dispensing of justice”. Some of the changes are:

1. Cabinet has decided to raise the retirement age of judges from 65 to 70.
2. 60 additional courts occupying 14 floors at the International Waterfront Centre.
3. a new system of penalties for traffic violations, namely fixed penalties.

If Dr Rowley thinks that these measures would actually make a difference, he must believe that Trinidad and Tobago is some sort of fairy land. Raising the retirement age of judges from 65 to 70 would merely prolong any incompetence of the judicial bench. Take for example the case of Monica Jane Ramnarine (Appellant) v Chandra Bose Ramnarine (Respondent) [2013] UKPC 27 heard in 2013 at the Privy Council (the Board).

• The first instance judge Tam J took 4 years and 9 months to begin the hearing.
• He then took 4 years to deliver an oral judgement from the end of the hearing.
• He then took a further 1 year and 10 months to deliver an 11-page written judgment.
• Notice of appeal was immediately given after the written judgement but the case took a further 2 years and 3 months for the appeal to be heard.
• The Court of Appeal took a further 3 years and 2 months to clarify issues for the further appeal to the Privy Council.

A total of 16 years passed before the case was finally decided, during which time legal cost almost surpassed the cost of the estate involved. Only good manners and judicial restraint kept the Board to “a measured response” [the Board’s words].

Does Dr Rowley wish to keep Tam J on the bench, when in the case of Vishnu Ramdath, he took 6 years to deliver an oral judgement?

On the issue of 60 additional courts, one has to ask the obvious question – where is the staff coming from? Can we expect 60 additional judges plus support staff? Will the judiciary continue to be treated like a stray dog, begging for scraps from central government? In 2009, the cost for salaries and other expenses was $349 million. The judiciary was granted $42.5 million! Essentially, every year the judiciary is strangled for the want of funds, making it dependant on the administrative arm of the State.

In the meantime, people on remand awaiting up to 16 years (just a coincidence, nothing to do with Tam J) for preliminary hearings. Certainly not in keeping with the Rule of Law (speedy enforcement of the law), but who cares? In some cases, the length of time on remand is more than the time a guilty person would have spent imprisoned, had he been found guilty of course.

I am not knocking changes to the system – all and sundry knows that it is sorely needed! The problem is that Dr Rowley cannot seem to see the wood for the trees. There is no quick and easy fix – this is a systemic problem rather than a systematic problem. A holistic approach is needed. Proper funding, proper staffing, enforcement by the police, awareness of rights by both police and judicial officers/lawyers, tighter and more efficient case management system, better record-keeping (boxes of court papers held in private lawyers’ offices?), penalties for lawyers who cause undue delay in case management… All of these and more are needed to really tackle the behemoth that is the judiciary.

Lack of common sense – Jumbie’s First Law strikes again

Akilah Holder’s letter to the editor “No law to fix for LGBT community”, published in the Daily Express 13 Sept ’19, is so devoid of sense one can only wonder whether the author is an adult with any reasoning skills. There’s a certain irony that the author is comfortable with two opposing ideas residing simultaneously in her head – this is called doublethink and is different from cognitive dissonance.

The two opposing ideas are these: on the one hand she agrees with the Prime Minister (PM) that the LGBT people are entitled to the same protections under the law as ‘regular’ people. More on this later.

On the other hand, she welcomes the position of the ‘heads of the major religions’ who disapprove of “giving” rights to the LGBT community.

For the edification of Miss Holder and the others, no one has to “give” rights to the LGBT community. They acquired and possess all rights under the Constitution. The fact is that they are denied exercising those rights, which they already have, openly and without fear.

To return to the Prime Minister’s opinion that LGBT people have the same protections under the law, I fear I need to correct the misguided doctor. The Equal Opportunity Act (EOA) 2000 specifically omits “sexual preference or orientation” as a status. Compare this with the Constitution, the international agreements which Trinidad and Tobago have been signatories to, and various human rights instruments around the world, and you will see just how backward Trinidad and Tobago really is.

This is the reason for a judgment in favour of the LGBT community in the Jones case. Clearly, the misguided doctor failed to inform himself before speaking. I don’t know for others, but I expect the leader of any nation to be a bit more circumspect and informed before he opens his mouth.

A word of caution to Miss Holder – don’t let your militant Christianity blind you to common sense and basic reasoning skills.

Dr Crowne’s covert agenda

In his latest letter published at Wired868, Dr Crowne’s motive is highly suspect as he appears to be highly confused and seemingly intent on confusing everybody else. Dr Crowne seems to think he can force his opinion on everybody using soundbites and rather vacant, dressed-up utterances based on headline intelligence - by relying on his qualifications and international fame in 'Sports Law'. His agenda is conspicuously to use websites, including Wired868, and newspaper articles for the covert purpose of advertising himself. Those among the undiscerning are his potential prey.

Despite disagreeing with several eminent Queen’s Counsels (QCs) who are qualified in Constitutional law, Dr Crowne has still failed to give any discernible and cogent reason as to his opinion.

On 24th July 2019 on Wired868, he stated, “The Prime Minister’s decision to refer, or not refer, allegations to the President—who in turn is constitutionally charged with appointing a tribunal to formally investigate such allegations—is itself an intrusion into judicial independence and the usual separation of powers. To then have a Court review the Prime Minister’s exercise of his discretion would then further intrude into the separation of powers. It would be a conceptual mess.” This was and is pure nonsense for reasons that I addressed earlier.

Then, on 3rd August he does an about-face to say, “I fear that even in the absence of any findings of misconduct by a Presidential tribunal constituted pursuant to section 137 of the Constitution, there is an undeniable perception that the integrity of the judiciary has been impugned.”

The contrast in opinions howsoever arrived at, is startling. In essence, Dr Crowne’s first article makes the case that the PM’s decision not to refer the matter to the President was correct because the PM sought legal advice. Notably in that article Crowne did not examine the nature of the legal advice - when everybody had access to it. Now in his latest letter, he makes the case that whether or not a Tribunal is convened under s137, there is a perception that the integrity of the judiciary has been impugned.

One must wonder - is Dr Crowne lacking self-awareness? Is he saying now, at today’s date, that whilst there is a valid perception of the judiciary’s integrity being impugned, a Tribunal constituted via a 137 referral on the matter of potential misconduct, is irrelevant? This is all very confusing.

Dr Crowne may attempt to wriggle out of his obvious self-contradiction by ‘distinguishing’ the matter of Justice Gobin from the issue of the PM making a referral on other matters. But that just wouldn’t cut. The issue with Justice Gobin simply adds to the pile of evidence that lies with the PM and in the public domain, that the case for a s137 referral is more necessary than ever, if only to ascertain the facts. I have given other reasons, adapted from Hill

On the one hand, he is saying that the Chief Justice need not resign because there is no evidence of wrongdoing. But, on the other hand he says the Chief Justice should resign because there is a perception of wrongdoing. One would think that a lawyer would be eager to test the evidence of whether that perception can be supported by facts.

Dr Crowne may also attempt to distinguish on matters of public and administrative law. He demonstrates no skill or depth of knowledge in his utterances in that area of law. His argument of 24th July was/is fatally flawed because:

1.   The PM’s discretion to refer the matter of the CJ’s perceived conduct to the president is factually not an intrusion “...into judicial independence and the usual separation of powers”. If that was the case, then the Constitution itself is fundamentally wrong to give such a discretion to the PM. But Dr Crowne in his choice of words, taken as a whole, suggests that the President too would be complicit in assaulting the principle of the ‘separation of powers’ by convening a S137 Tribunal. Read what Dr Crowne says very carefully. Like I said previously, the framers of the Constitution were no dummies.

2.    Judicial Review - as Crowne will discover - is a legitimate legal investigation of powers and discretions, derived in law, are used (or not used). Every first-year law student will be aware of this. It is about the Rule of Law. That Dr Crowne says “…to then have a Court review the Prime Minister’s exercise of his discretion would then further intrude into the separation of powers.” - is an absurd conclusion or statement. How? The Courts have a mandate to judicially review any case, where there is merit, by investigating the applications of law carried out by those exercising public functions - which the PM certainly is. This has emerged clearly from the basic principles of the Rule of Law, which harks back to the Magna Carta 800 years ago - and has subsequently stood the test of time.

Dr Crowne would be well advised to stick within his original area of expertise which is ‘Sports Law’ https://newcitychambers.com/dr-emir-crowne-named-one-of-the-worlds-top-sport-lawyers/ - or update his knowledge base of Public and Administrative law fully, before opening his mouth.

In effect - whether intended or not - Crowne would have us tear up the Rule of Law. His words are destructive and self-destructive. He comes across as being out of his depth. This is not only my opinion, this has been stated in the public domain by others who are also equally well qualified legally, as previously noted.

One would have to take what he says with a grain of salt, as the saying goes. If the Chief Justice must resign gracefully (one of the lessons of the Kobayashi Maru test is to accept losing gracefully, but definitely not about resigning or giving up!) it should have been done long ago. Grace is impossible at this point, and the judiciary is already far more impugned by the Chief Justice than merely his exchange with Justice Gobin. The latter is merely a symptom of a far deeper problem caused by the Chief Justice holding onto office at all cost.

Common sense and transparency

The case of Jamaicans for Justice v Police Service Commission & Anor (Jamaica) [2019] UKPC 12, decided on March 25, 2019 at the Privy Council (PC) has very strong lessons for Trinidad and Tobago. It is directly related to issues of , and has bearing on the reluctance of President Paula Mae Weekes to divulge information on the selection process and the names of judges selected for higher office. It is also applicable where police officers are to be appointed/promoted when they have charges (accusations) against them.

The case (found at http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKPC/2019/12.html) is summarised below, adapted from the judgment:

“The issue in this case is what steps the (Jamaican) Police Service Commission (PSC), which is charged with deciding upon the appointment and promotion of police officers, should take to inform itself about officers recommended for promotion who have been involved in fatal incidents before making its decisions. In particular, is there a duty to ensure that allegations of extra-judicial killings against such an officer are fully and independently investigated before accepting a recommendation that he be promoted?

Jamaicans for Justice (“JJ”) is anon-governmental, non-partisan human rights organisation. It challenged the PSC on the promotion of police officer Superintendent Hewitt under the grounds that there were complaints of unprofessional conduct against Superintendent Hewitt, including complaints of fatal shootings by officers under his command.

The purpose of setting up the (Police Service Commission) PSC, along with the other public service commissions provided for in the Constitution, is to insulate the Jamaica Constabulary Force (JCF) (and other public office holders) from political influence (Thomas v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago [1982] AC 113). [This is directly applicable to Trinidad and Tobago as well.]

The PC (called “the Board”) in the judgment noted the following:

• It is clear to this Board that the PSC, like the JCF… and other organs of the State, must exercise its functions in a manner which is compatible with the fundamental rights of all persons, including the right to life, the right to equality before the law and the right to due process of law.

• The Board is also disposed to accept that the right to equality before the law, like the right to the equal protection of the law, affords every person protection against irrationality, unreasonableness, fundamental unfairness or the arbitrary exercise of power. These are, in any event, fundamental common law principles governing the exercise of public functions. As there is nothing in the statutory framework governing the PSC to contradict them, they are applicable in this case irrespective of whether or not they have the status of a constitutional right.

• While the level of serious violent crime in some parts of Jamaica was a grave concern, there was also a grave concern, both nationally and internationally, that the police, or some members of the JCF, were overly inclined to take the law into their own hands in dealing with it, thus risking violations of the right to life, to due process of the law and to equality before the law of the people involved. Superintendent Hewitt was involved, as team leader, in a large number of fatal incidents. No independent investigation of these incidents had taken place. Such an investigation might reveal a different picture from the very summary table of incidents with which the PSC had been provided. It would serve to put the statements of the Commissioner, and of Superintendent Hewitt himself, as to his effectiveness in fighting crime, into context. The final decision would still be that of the PSC, but there was a reasonable prospect that a properly informed PSC might have made a different decision.”

The Privy Council found in favour of Jamaicans for Justice. In other words, there is a duty to fully and independently investigate a police officer whose behaviour has been questionable in the line of duty, before deciding to promote him.

Now apply that principle to the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service (“TTPS”), the Police Complaints Authority, and Gary ‘one-shot, one kill’ Griffith. And to the President denying access to information regarding the (secretive) selection of judges – where is the transparency? Can the public be really certain that the persons so selected do not have cause for investigations into their backgrounds? Lack of transparency led to inappropriate appointments to the Integrity Commission, Police Service Commission, the Judicial and Legal Services Commission, the Judiciary… And I can go on and on…

It takes the Privy Council to direct officeholders into following what ought to be common sense.

Imbert’s Ego

In a clear difference of opinions playing out in the media (“Colm calls Gary’s cries for $$ ‘fake news’” [Newsday 20/03/19]), Finance Minister Com Imbert and Commissioner of Police Gary Griffith are each contradicting the other with regard to funding for the police service. This is not the first time, nor the last I suspect.

What struck me as being ‘normal’ on par for Minister Imbert is his arrogance coming to the fore. At every opportunity to stroke his own ego, Mr Imbert is thumping his chest, insisting as it were that he is the only ‘capable’ person in the room. Or implying he is the most intelligent.

"I think the new people are not entirely familiar with how to do the paperwork necessary to request funds because, quite often, I get asked to intervene and help and that, to me, as far as I’m concerned, is the real problem.”

So, among other things we are led to believe Imbert is the best accountant and financial adviser in the country and no paperwork going to the Ministry of Finance from the police service is correctly done, and the Minister must do the paperwork personally if it is to be done right.

I recall last year when a reporter questioned the length of time the Galleons Passage was taking to come to Trinidad, Mr Imbert was his usual snotty self in putting her down. He talked down in a very conceited manner to the reporter saying the ‘free’ software tracking the boat was not as good as the paid version he was using. Of course, time and history has proven the reporter right. One wonders then how the finance wizard can explain paying for software that proved to be so imprecise, when the free version was dead-to-rights accurate.

A word to the wise, Minister. Poodles and pompeks often think they too are the biggest and the ‘baddest’.

Liquid paper President

If the Newsday is correct in reporting [Newsday 28/02/2019] that President Weekes “is proposing to the Judicial and Legal Service Commission (JLSC) to revoke the appointment of Appeal Court judge Charmaine Pemberton” and “re-appointed under the correct provision: section 110(3) (a)”, one can only wonder whether the President thinks that this is sufficient to correct the constitutional chaos caused by the appointment.

It seems that the President is glossing over the fact that Justice Pemberton was illegally appointed, and took part in decision-making during this time, decisions which in themselves would be illegal if she formed part of the quorum as required by law. The shambles which the country and the judiciary find itself is not so easily solved. What of the appointments made to the judicial bench by the JLSC? And the flowing from those, what of all those convictions and sentences passed by those appointees?

It is perhaps the Trinidadian way to think that simply “firing” and “rehiring” Justice Pemberton would solve the problem. All that is doing is putting a coat of paint on a sadly battered fence, to use a Mark Twain analogy. Or, more aptly in this case, a dab of ‘Liquid Paper’ over a ‘b’ to change it to an ‘a’. That merely resolves the problem of the appointment from this point onward, while the rot that started in 2017 with the original ‘appointment’ remains.

The liquid paper President ironically writes to propose a solution to the very body that is illegal! Does she need the approval of the JLSC to make the changes? Imagine a judge asking a convicted felon, “I’m suggesting I sentence you to the death penalty, do you approve?”

The situation is not merely farcical, it’s a downright upright middle finger to the entire country! And, don’t forget the proposal to reappoint Justice Pemberton again points that middle finger at the more senior judges who also qualified for the post.

What I understand further is that in Trinidad, power – perceived power – is held on to at all costs. It is why Justice Pemberton, like so many others, does not have the shame to resign, but is waiting for the ignominy of being ‘fired’. It would have been simple for her to resign following the Privy Council (PC) judgment, but that is not the Trini way, is it?

Or, maybe she sees that a resignation letter is too much to liquid paper over.