Appalled at her treatment

July 15, 2009

Dear Sir,

Please allow me the opportunity to comment on the following articles: Letter to the Editor in The Royal Gazette, "Flabbergasted by AG's assessment of legality of Uighurs move" by former Attorney General Phil Perinchief on Saturday, July 4, 2009; and the article by Sam Strangeways on Jul 15, 2009 — "A month after arriving, Uighurs wish is to become productive Island citizens".

In the letter to the Editor, Mr. Perinchief made comments in response to another Royal Gazette article (July 2, 2009) — "Attorney General says Premier acted within the law when he brought former Guantánamo detainees to the Island". Mr. Perinchief is of the opinion that Attorney General Sen. Kim Wilson's comments exhibit an unhealthy and erroneous appreciation and understanding of constitutional and international legal matters. Governor Sir Richard Gozney's comment that Premier Brown had no authority to bring the Uighurs to Bermuda without the UK's permission supports Mr. Perinchief's opinion that "The Premier, and those who acted for and under him in this matter, has acted unconstitutionally and therefore unlawfully on a number of counts". I can, therefore, understand why Mr. Perinchief is appalled, disappointed and hugely embarrassed for the current Attorney General in respect of her remarks on the 'lawfulness' of the Premier's actions.

It's obvious that our leader the Hon. Premier Ewart Brown has breached The Constitution of Bermuda, even though the highest law officer in Bermuda is of a different opinion. It's particularly discouraging to people who are already weary of complaining about breaches of Codes of Conduct, and are either not receiving responses to complaints or are receiving delayed negative responses. Have breaches become acceptable conduct for a select few, depending on who it is?

I am presently awaiting the outcome of two complaints I hand delivered to Bermuda Bar Association President Kiernan J. Bell on April 21, 2009. I found it rather interesting that of the two letters, I received a response to only one of them informing me that my complaint had been referred to the Professional Conduct Committee in accordance with the legislation and regulations governing complaints made about members of the Bar. The other complaint, however, about a member of the Professional Conduct Committee has resulted in no feedback (verbal or written) from the President of the Bermuda Bar Association.

This leads me to the other article I mentioned about the Uighurs (July 15, 2009). Of course, it's the prerogative of Mr. Richard Horseman to volunteer his services on a pro bono basis to assist the Uighurs; but this kind gesture is certainly in contrast to the treatment I have been subjected to by Mr. Horseman and his representatives. He previously agreed to assist me with my property matter, but to date I am no better off. He has since required that I sign a document agreeing to officially terminate him as my lawyer in light of a letter to the Editor sharing my opinion about an unrelated matter (I'm assuming he was referring to the letter entitled, 'A barrister's duty' published March 11, 2009).

Mr. Horseman made a comment in the July 15, 2009 Royal Gazette article that, "Once you land in Bermuda, the Human Rights Act applies to you, the Constitution applies to you; you have a right to political and religious freedom". Mr. Horseman appears to have conveniently forgotten about the same Constitution when he sent me the e-mail after I shared my opinion via the letters to the Editor. Mr. Horseman agreed to assist me when a St. David's family encroached on my property after receiving Government assistance. I realised that my legal advisers were reluctant to deal with the encroachment because it involved the actions of a senior lawyer. The procrastination has allowed the family to create a so-called boundary dispute. They have breached many of the Planning Regulations in the process. The lawyers and others involved in this matter are aware that the family deliberately dug up my boundary hedge and stakes (without my consent) to create an access road to their property which was previously a footpath. It's unfair to force me into legal action (i.e. expense) when my property was already free and clear and officially staked. Unlike the family, I haven't received financial assistance from the public.

Mr. Horseman agreed to assist me with this matter and claims to have reviewed my file, yet he states that he was not aware of the St. David's family lawyer breaching any rule of professional conduct. Please note that Mr. Horseman is a member of the professional Conduct Committee and he should, therefore, be familiar with every rule of the Barristers Code of Professional Conduct. On the other hand, the other senior lawyer of the St. David's family should also be aware that even though rule No. 4 states that, "A barrister must discharge his duties to his client, the court, members of the public and his fellow members of the profession with integrity and in accordance with this Code", this also applies to all barristers, regardless of their rank.

I am disturbed that Mr. Horsman let my matter lie dormant for over one year and it wasn't until after I complained to the Bermuda Bar Association about the matter and was awaiting a response, that he attempted to move the matter along. What's even more disturbing is that both Mr. Richard Horseman and Sen. Wilson are legal professionals and should set better examples.

I consider myself to be a productive citizen of Bermuda and I am also appalled with the treatment that I have received from one of these professionals. Even though I have sought legal assistance, obtained a temporary interim injunction, complained to the Police, written letters to Government Ministers, made three complaints to the Bermuda Bar Association, my matter remains unresolved. It certainly appears as though more effort is being put into settling matters for the Uighurs, rather than taking care of fellow Bermudians, which is ridiculous.

JENNIFER CAINES

Devonshire