MR BRYN Pollard, S.C., clearly an admirer of Mr Nigel Hughes, is concerned that the police are probing transgressions that Mr Hughes may have allegedly committed.  “What could the police be probing, and more importantly, what could have motivated them to do so?  Was there a complaint made by someone of which the public is unaware?’ he inquires.  ‘Methinks thou protest too much’ (Shakespeare’s Hamlet) only makes routine nervousness into greater unease if Mr Pollard should know. If no crime was committed what reasons are there to fear?

Law and order cannot achieve validity and significance in selective application to its letter and not the spirit to now exclude its practitioners altogether.
Any demands which advocate no justice no peace become laughable as found in Mr Pollard’s refusal to acknowledge problems in our midst as was captured in his SN letter of October 19, 2013.
When problems exist in our society, even the police are being cautioned not to fix them. In a worldwide economic recession, already the PNCR’s Mr David Granger has condemned the creation of the SWAT team to tackle crime. As they see it, no crime problem, no need to fix it therefore no SWAT and no wonder they want Minister Rohee gone.
What is really implied when Mr Pollard writes: ‘It does not augur well for the recently confirmed Commissioner of Police Mr. Brumell to have his subordinates investigating matters which cannot form the basis for any criminal charge.”
Obviously excusing the  much criticised Mr. Nigel Hughes’s misconduct  for not disclosing to the  judge  a previous attorney/client relationship with a member of the jury  —  he is an officer of the court  — cannot effectively invalidate  Mr Hughes’s increasing  injudicious behaviour. Mr Harry Gill’s August 17, 2013 letter in the Chronicle which highlights misconduct does not automatically become dismissed because it triggers Mr Pollard’s protestations. Mr Pollard’s resort and reliance on research alone cannot do that.
Any media advocacy that only the prosecutor is obliged to report a previous relationship with a juror, but this does not equally apply to the defence thereby ensuring justice is most unsound and is governed by other motives.  It means Mr Pollard cannot be right or is automatically correct. The trial judge immediately recognised a perversion of justice as did Mr Public Chanakya Opinion, clearly without any research.
The pronounced absence of a commentary from either the Guyana Bar Association or its female counterpart the Guyana Association of Women Lawyers , as Mr Pollard reminds us, may create an impression  that Mr Hughes’s behaviour is sanctioned. Apparently they too do not see any problem which requires fixing. More crime means more clients, obviously.
Constant letters from the learned senior counsel’s which underscores an apparent misalignment is disturbing as it is increasingly disappointing to those who still hold him in regard.  Since Mr Pollard has only clarified that jury tampering is not wrong or unethical, then conclusions about Mr Hughes removing evidence at the Buxton gas station robbery and murder can only remain a valid matter of public judgement and police scrutiny.
Mr Pollard is too refined and seasoned to be pleased with Mr Hughes’s boorish, unethical behaviour before the legal Caribbean luminaries of the Linden Commission of Inquiry. That can maybe RIP.

SULTAN MOHAMED