Dear Editor,
Attorney–at–law Ryan Crawford, appeared at the Vigilance Magistrate’s Court, last September, charged on five counts in breach of the laws which arose out of an incident on a public highway, when he was stopped by a police rank on patrol duty.
It was a most shocking, shameful, and offensive display (reported) which has ever been publicly displayed by an attorney. After all, the policeman was only carrying out his lawful duties.

Mr. Crawford, it had been reported was accompanied by an 11-man team of attorneys. Was this a preponderant show of legal representation, designed to cow the sitting magistrate? One wonders!

Based on media reports, this matter had been adjourned to October 11; however, it has been more than a month since the latter date has passed, and I cannot recall, whether by way of print or electronic media, any information as to whether this matter had indeed been further dealt with, if at all, and its conclusion.
Editor, I am curious about this particular case because I am in no doubt, though I speak in layman’s language, when justice is allowed to take its course that this citizen can be found guilty of the charges for which he is arraigned, especially those pertaining to use of obscene language, and riotious behaviour. However, there is a tradition in this country, of members of the professional class not being sanctioned for offences, similar in nature as those committed by ordinary citizens who are always surely and swiftly made to suffer legal penalty.

It is time that this nonsense, and this is being charitable in description, ceases as it is a continuation of citizens being treated by law, based on their social status.
One would hope that this attorney, has not been given the let off, or a slap on the wrist penalty, or a simple reprimand and discharge, and that this would not have been done without the presence or knowledge of the media. This would be tantamount to the law, not wanting the public to be informed as to whatever conclusive decision has been made concerning one of its officers.

A further concern was what has been the definite refusal by the Guyana Bar Association (GBA) to reprimand this clearly disrespectful attorney. This is despite the association issuing a statement which reiterated that it, “holds is members to the highest standards of ethics…..befitting that of our most noble and esteemed profession”. Surely, something has to have gone absolutely wrong with this representative body not understanding what kind of conduct, should warrant its disapproval.
Regards,
Observer