Law Association stands behind Daly in feud with AG

The Council of the Law Association made it clear Tuesday that statements made by Martin Daly represent the views of the entire council.

And in an official statement it said it "will not be deterred or intimidated by personal attacks on its president".

The statement signed by secretary Patricia Dindyal reiterated that the council is standing behind all statements by Daly, who is president of the Law Association.

The council's statement was in respect of an attack on Daly in Parliament last week when Attorney General John Jeremie accused Daly of telling a lie without specifying the details of this.

Daly had earlier criticized the veto that Prime Minister Patrick Manning exercised in rejecting the candidate chosen by the Judicial and Legal Service Commissions for the post of Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).

Daly and the Law Association had also criticized Jeremie for chastising Justice Rajendra Narine who asked for a police and DPP investigation of a controversial affidavit sworn by Jamat al Muslimeen Leader, Yasin Abu Bakr.

Jeremie said he would be writing the Law Association in the wake of the comments by Daly and the law Association.

"The Council awaits receipt from the Attorney General of the letter and opinions to which he refers in his address to the Parliament and will consider same at its regular monthly meeting in mid-October," Dindyal noted.

Jeremie is standing by his position that Justice Narine was out of line to ask for the investigation since two higher courts had ruled it irrelevant.

On Tuesday, he presented two legal opinions to support his views. They are from Jamaican legal expert Lloyd G. Barnett and former Jamaican Solicitor General B. St Michael Hylton QC.

This is what Barnett says:

“When a court orders an affidavit to be removed from the record on the grounds that it is scandalous, vexatious or oppressive, the effect is to destroy or nullify the public or official records of the statements contained in the affidavit

“Any reference to the affidavit in the same or related proceedings is improper. In fact it is the duty of the Registry to destroy the affidavit because it should no longer be referred to in the pending proceedings...In the instant proceedings my understanding is that the trial judge was dealing with a sequel to the Court of Appeal decision which ordered the removal of the affidavit from the record. So not only was there an order of the higher court by which he was bound, but the proceedings were related.”

Hylton stated:

“It was inappropriate for him to make any reference to the challenged affidavit at all and should have treated it as never having been filed.”