Attorney Tabor says ‘sorry’ for comments about court ruling

0
836
- Advertisement -

A comment made “in the heat of the moment” Tuesday, now has attorney Charlesworth Tabor publicly apologising to Magistrate Ngaio Emanuel for the manner in which he criticised her ruling in a case against political hopeful, George Wehner.
He first apologised in open court yesterday morning, then issued her a letter doing the same, and he subsequently spoke with the media, alerting the reporter to the development and the regret he feels over what he said.
“I should not have said that the judgment is perverse. You can say that you disagree with the judgement and you are going to appeal, but you shouldn’t say the magistrate’s judgement is perverse or it’s a travesty of justice because you are bringing the court into disrepute; because you are bringing her decision-making into disrepute, and we shouldn’t really do that,” he explained to OBSERVER media in an exclusive interview.
Tabor went further in his apology when he wrote to the magistrate, stating, “I wish to formally apologise to you about my comment. It was unwarranted and would appear to bring the integrity of the Judiciary into disrepute.  My comment was made, as it were in the heat of the moment.”
In the letter, which he shared with OBSERVER media yesterday, he told the magistrate that he had only just received the decision Tuesday morning when he spoke with the media, but now, having reflected on his words, he finds, “[it] reflects poor judgement on my part and was totally unwarranted. Again, I humbly apologise and can assure you that a similar situation will not recur.”
The word ‘perverse’, an adjective, is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as, “Showing a deliberate and obstinate desire to behave in a way that is unreasonable or unacceptable.”
Another definition in the same dictionary is, “Contrary to the accepted or expected standard or practice.” While, the dictionary states that when speaking of a verdict in Law, the word means, “(a verdict) against the weight of evidence or the direction of the judge on a point of law.”
Tabor said his statement about this judgment was too strong, but that he still disagrees with the ruling of the court against his client who was found guilty of battery on Marvin Cuffy, a policeman.
Tabor’s argument is that Wehner should not have been found guilty because he only put his hands on Cuffy after he repeatedly told him to turn off his phone and to leave the meeting of the good governance advocacy group, the Movement, in September 2016.  The lawyer further contended that when Cuffy did not comply, this amounted to “trespassing” and gave Wehner the right to remove him using “reasonable force.”
Meanwhile, Tabor said that as an advocate for the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), he finds too many people have been taking his criticism of the judgement out of context.
He said the comment and case have nothing to do with the CCJ as he spoke highly of the regional judiciary.
“I am fully on board with the CCJ, and I think it is long overdue that we should have moved away from the Privy Council and have the CCJ as our final appellate court. So, to the people who think that because of the judgment we shouldn’t go to the CCJ and we should stick with the Privy Council, I am totally against that,” he concluded.

- Advertisement -

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here