Lawyer responds to story

October 21, 2003

Dear Sir,

It is my view that the report of the proceedings in the Supreme Court that appeared in The Royal Gazette on October 14 were extremely unfair. The comments made concerning myself were inaccurate, and irresponsible. Such a style of reporting is reminiscent of certain British tabloids and can only serve to further undermine the credibility of The Royal Gazette. Firstly your reporter only rushed into court sometime after 10 a.m. when the court had already been in session for some time and then took the comments made by prosecuting counsel as fact. As I recall prosecuting counsel was far more careful with her words than your reporter has been.

Perhaps I can assist and relay the facts that were not reported. My client Denton Parris, who is charged with armed robbery, had a difference of opinion with me for various reasons, which I cannot go into for reasons of client professional privilege. This difference of opinion resulted in us parting company on the Friday evening, the last working day before his trial which was scheduled for the following Monday. He decided that he would not instruct me further and I in turn informed the court of this the first thing on Monday morning. Prosecuting counsel assumed and stated in court that the reason for this appeared to be that he had no further confidence in his attorney. At this point neither he nor I had stated any such thing to the court. Such a negative comment purported as fact by your reporter injures my professional reputation in the mind of the public.

My first application to the court, which your reporter apparently missed, was to be properly withdrawn from the case, which the court refused so I am still listed on the record as Denton Parris' attorney. Secondly the reporter has called me a "legal aid appointed lawyer", when obviously he does not understand that the legal aid offices do not appoint lawyers for defendants. Persons in need of legal aid assistance apply for a legal aid certificate and such certificate may be granted to the lawyer of their choice to cover that lawyer's costs as has happened in this case. It is generally known that many if not most defendants accused of serious crimes in the Supreme Court are legally aided. Mr. Parris asked me to represent him. The legal aid office did not appoint me.

Thirdly the story in which my name appeared did so under a banner headline, "Judge slams absent lawyers" This was entirely inaccurate and unfair as I was present in court at that time. It seems painfully obvious that The Royal Gazette allows stories to be printed in this manner for the purpose of malicious entertainment and always at the expense of those it inaccurately describes. The Royal Gazette should be more careful in the future in order to avoid being the subject of court actions.

DARRELL CLARKE

City of Hamilton

Editor's Note: The Royal Gazette acknowledges that the headline of the story on October 14 should have should have stated: "Judge slams absent lawyer" not "lawyers" and that Mr. Clarke was not "appointed" by Legal Aid but by his client who had received a Legal Aid certificate. We also acknowledge that Mr. Clarke applied to be withdrawn from the case and was turned down by the judge.

UBP is quite diverse

October 19, 2003

Dear Sir,

Scanning your front page on Friday, October 17, 2003, I was floored to read a headline of Robert Pires attacking Dr. Grant Gibbons for the UBP's "lack of diversity". Hallelujah! The day has come when the UBP is being criticised for being too black. The PLP think so too, that's why they perpetuate the Uncle Tom line of attack, otherwise they'll have to talk about the issues. I'm not sure what Mr. Pires had in mind but the UBP's candidates and elected officials look pretty diverse to me.

I thought he'd have directed his anger at the non-diverse Party - you know the one that had a lone non-black candidate. The party that ran ads calling the UBP a "bunch of shysters", their black candidates "suntanned", rallied their supporters by saying demographics alone would win this election and placed flyers on cars urging Bermudians not to vote themselves "back on the plantation" (Dr. Ewart Brown's rally cry). The UBP is too black, too white or not Portuguese enough depending on who you talk to. Sounds like Dr. Gibbons did just fine.

BERMUDIAN

Warwick

P.s. I thought that Suzanne Roberts Holshouser's mother was Portuguese? So that makes two. I wonder if that makes Mr. Pires happier or if this is just a case of sour grapes.

Abolish Tourism ministry

October 18, 2003

Dear Sir,

According to the Mid-Ocean News of October 17, BAT (which should stand for Bungling and Terminal) is recommending a cool $15 million in order "to halt tourism's slide to insidious death". Fifteen million dollars does not sound much - it is only $250 for each resident of Bermuda or an even $1,000 for a family of four. All you rich parents who are struggling to pay the rent or school fees must feel relieved that the wowsers and snouters at the Department of Tourism who feed at the public trough are not asking you for a couple of grand to keep themselves living high on the hog whilst you cut corners. This circus is rewarded each year with a higher and higher budget as its performance deteriorates.

In the make-believe world of government, it is only when you screw-up royally that it makes sense to ask for additional funds. Having torpedoed the tourism industry for about 20 years, the gang that cannot shoot straight are only asking for another $15 million to keep them in the style to which they have been accustomed. The next time they screw up, which should be in about six months, they will hold out the begging bowl for - let's not be chintzy - $50 million. Bad as the foregoing may sound, we also have the esteemed Minister of Tourism stating that the job of tourism is not fill hotel beds. Great, what an admission.

Here is the complete answer to the abolition of this deadbeat organisation. If their jobs are not about bringing in bodies to fill the beds of hotels, exactly what is it? To have a jazz festival that does not feature a single jazz player? To keep the local press furnished with pictures of the Minister hobnobbing with the rich and famous like Harry Belafonte? To have endless trips abroad at the expense of the taxpayer? The Minister, in her many acts of financial folly, has unwittingly stated in crystal-clear prose that the Department of Tourism does not have any mission. If it does not produce people to populate local hotels, then does not have any function?

This Department is a complete fiasco and should either be abolished or privatised. The hard-pressed taxpayer can then use its cost (around $100,000 per day) to pay for more immediate and important bills and send the incompetents on Church Street a message - "get a real job, and get off my back".

ROBERT STEWART

Smith's Parish

Put salaries to a committee

October 19, 2003

Dear Sir,

There was a story in the Bermuda Sun last Friday on Ministers and money written by Meredith Ebbin, which caught my attention. The issue concerned whether Ministers should be full time or not and also determining how they should be compensated was raised. I have to say I agree wholeheartedly with Works and Engineering Minister Terry Lister who stated: "We should only have full time ministers for ministries that are large enough and demanding enough."

While he declined to elaborate I suspect that he was referring to ministries such as Labour and Home Affairs, Health and Social Services, Finance, Tourism and Telecommunications, Works and Engineering and of course the Premier. Other ministries such as Environment, Legislative Affairs and Youth, Sport and Cultural Affairs may not warrant full-time posts. It is obvious that this would create a two-tier Cabinet, with full-time senior cabinet ministers carrying a greater workload and justifiably be deserving of greater financial remuneration.

On the question of who should decide compensation for full-time ministers I believe Opposition Leader Dr. Grant Gibbons has it right - this would best be put before a commission or task force to avoid any appearance of self-serving which invariably paints all Members of Parliament in a bad light. Minister without Portfolio Ashfield Devent questioned whether the current salary range is sufficient to attract the Island's brightest minds. While I understand his sentiments I doubt the public purse will ever be able to compete with the private sector in terms of salaries to attract these people nor should it, as those seeking such positions should be motivated in large part by the notion of public service not simply making money.

RECMAN

Devonshire