…AG says in response to President on judge’s complaint

ATTORNEY General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Basil Williams, has informed President David Granger that there is no merit to Justice Franklin Holder’s allegations of contempt, maintaining that at no time was he disrespectful, insulting or contemptuous.

He is also suggesting that the judge should recuse himself from the Carvil Duncan case.
The Attorney General was at the time responding to President Granger based on a letter of complaint filed by Justice Holder concerning his behaviour in court on March 23, 2017.
In his letter of complaint, Justice Holder contended that the Attorney General’s statements in the court, were disrespectful and contemptuous. He is now demanding a “genuine and meaningful” apology.

But in a letter addressed to President Granger on April 15, which was seen by the Guyana Chronicle, the Attorney General dismissed the claims.
Alluding to the Contempt of Court Act Chapter 5:05, Minister Williams pointed out that there are provisions in the law for a Judge presiding in a court to cite and punish persons for contempt.

Because Contempt of Court is a criminal offence, the Attorney General argued that Justice Holder was required under the Act to inform him of the offence committed before adjourning the matter on the same day.
“Justice Holder did not inform, warn or in any manner convey to the Hon. Attorney General that he considered he was being contemptuous before he left the courtroom that day and was therefore functus officio.

Justice Holder could not lawfully almost two days later by letter purport to raise accusations of contempt against the Hon. Attorney General for what he alleges occurred in his court previously,” Minister Williams argued.
In his letter to the President, he stated too that Article 144 (8) of the Constitution requires a Judge to give notice to the Attorney-at-Law in Court on any behaviour which is contemptuous, insulting, disrespectful and despicable in the face of the Court.

“On a proper perusal of his letter of Complaint, the Learned Judge purports to list seven instances which in his opinion amounted to contemptuous behaviour yet in not one of them informed the Hon. Attorney General he was close to committing contempt or warned him or in any manner giving him notice of misbehaviour, or charged him for contempt,” he told President Granger.

Minister Williams said the truth of the matter is that at the time Justice Holder left his Court, he was not being accused by him of being contemptuous. He said it was only after Attorney-at-Law Anil Nandlall had made some scandalous statements, that a letter of complaint was filed by the High Court Judge.
“The Learned Judge found no fault with the Attorney General in his Court but, without informing him before hand and giving him an opportunity to respond, he purports to go behind his back to complain to the President in order to have the Hon. Attorney General dismissed.

As a consequence, it is respectfully submitted that there is no foundation upon which Justice Holder could erect those serious allegations and sanctions he has proposed in his letter of complaint,” Minister Williams said.
The Attorney General told the President that it was Nandlall who was disrespectful in court, while Duncan and his confidential secretary were being cross-examined.

“Throughout the entire session, Mr. Nandlall interrupted the Court despite the pleas of Justice Holder for him to stop. Throughout the session, he prompted the witnesses before they answered the questions posed by the Attorney General, forcing the latter to go into the well of the Court, a privilege of Senior Counsel, to block their line of vision. Not to be undone, Mr. Nandlall resorted to throaty noises. Mr. Nandlall repeatedly hurled insults at the Hon. Attorney General throughout the session as the latter conducted the cross-examination,” Minister Williams complained.

He recalled that on the approach to 12:00hrs, the Learned Judge indicated that he was about to adjourn for the day, noting that it was then he requested permission to ask a final question of the confidential secretary which was granted and asked.
“Upon the answer of ‘No,’ to the question the Hon. Attorney General went back to his seat and as he turned to face the Court, he saw Justice Holder about to leave the Bench.
The Hon. Attorney General inquired of Justice Holder “Ex Abundanti Cautela (out of abundant caution) if he could clarify whether the witness’s answer of ‘No’ was recorded.” Surprisingly, Justice Holder’s response was that, “Mr. Williams you are not in control of my court,” he stated.

Reportedly in a conversational tone, Minister Williams said he agreed, while positing that it was Nandlall who had been seeking to do that the entire morning.
It was then that Justice Holder openly stated that he had taken umbrage to the question asked by the Attorney General, which suggested that he as the Judge did deliberately did not record the answer ‘YES’ earlier. But this was denied by the Attorney General.
“To assure the Learned Judge, the Hon. Attorney General referred to a case years ago where a Magistrate made a similar accusation when he was  before him, claiming   that  when the Hon. Attorney General said he never failed a subject at law school he understood he was saying that he the Magistrate had failed subjects.

The Hon. Attorney General said the Magistrate cited him for contempt and since then he has been very careful with his submissions to the Court lest there be a recurrence.  The Hon. Attorney General then said incidentally, the Magistrate is dead now, to let the Learned Judge know that he was not someone who is still in the system,” Minister Williams explained to the President.
The Hon. Attorney General respectfully assures your Excellency that he was never contemptuous of the Court and if he were, the Learned Judge would have informed, warned, cautioned, cited and charged him for contempt.
The Attorney General is maintaining that at no time was he disrespectful, insulting or contemptuous of Justice Holder.
“The Hon. Attorney General respectfully assures your Excellency that he was never contemptuous of the Court and if he were, the Learned Judge would have informed, warned, cautioned, cited and charged him for contempt.”
He is of the strong opinion that there is no “substratum” to support an apology, contending that Justice Holder would be in breach of Section 12, if he seeks one after the rising of the Court.

“On the contrary, the unsupported allegations of both Justice Holder and Mr. Nandlall severally, have brought the Hon. Attorney General into public odium and contempt and he has suffered in the estimation of the right-thinking members of society. I have made efforts through mediators to seek to meet with the Learned Judge to resolve any misapprehensions he might be harbouring, but without success.”

The Attorney General, in his letter to the President, suggested that Justice Holder recuse himself and send the matter back to the Chief Justice for re-assignment.”
He opined too that the matter should be heard in a courtroom where there is a Voice Verbatim Digital Sound Recording System or any other contemporaneous recording to avoid the ‘last bastion of a lawyer’s servitude’ before the courts.