July 14, 2011Dear Sir,It seems that Senator Michael Dunkley, former Leader of the United Bermuda Party, now of the One Bermuda Alliance, has embarked on playing the racecard game, an accusation thrown repeatedly into the face of Progressive Labour Party politicians over the last several years. In their utterances in respect of the sentence recently meted out by the Magistrate to Mr Richard Brown, both Sen Dunkley and Mr Marc Bean, MP, have trashed the time-honoured convention that the Legislature should not intermeddle in the decisions or affairs of the Judiciary. It is always cowardly of members of the Legislature to criticise the Judiciary, or Civil Servants, whom they know cannot respond in defence of themselves.Shame on Sen Dunkley, Shadow Security Minister, if he did indeed state that Mr. Brown was “a white guy who paid a lot of money and got off” (Royal Gazette, Page 6, July 12, 2011). Was that statement a sprat, thrown out by the Senator, to stir up the emotions of black Bermudians, in the hope of catching their votes at the next election?How could the Senator say, according to that article, that his unbridled comments were not a criticism of the judiciary? Was he not implicitly impugning the integrity of the magistrate in question? Since the Senator admitted that he was not in court, he was, therefore, in no position to know or assess what transpired therein. He ought to have kept his lips pursed. The good Senator, should stick to dabbling in matters political and leave the judicial affairs alone, bearing in mind that decisions made in the courts are appealable to higher courts.Ignorance of the law is never acceptable, from any one, as an excuse. The magistrate would have heard the allegation that Mr Brown was provoked by something said to him, by Mr Claridge, about his wife. Provocation, if established, can, in some circumstances, reduce the punishment imposable on the offender, or even completely set him free. Just over 20 years ago, a defendant, who stabbed her spouse to death, walked out of our Supreme Court — freed of murder. She had never spent an hour in prison. Mr Brown continues to walk with a Damocles sword suspended above his head for six months. An accused person has a constitutional right to plead not guilty when a charge is put to him by the magistrate, on first appearance in court. Mr. Brown exercised his right and pleaded guilty on the trial date. He could not be penalised for pleading not guilty previously. Following the plea of guilty, the magistrate would have had the summary of evidence read to him, as well as submissions for the prosecutor and mitigation from Mr Brown's lawyer. Having heard and considered all that, the magistrate judiciously exercised his discretion and, guided by the provisions of the Criminal Code, imposed the conditional discharge.Mr Brown did not pay out a lot of money and get off. Whether he had pleaded guilty, or not guilty, or been found guilty after a trial, the complainant, Mr Claridge, would have been in a position to sue Mr. Brown for damages: medical expenses, and compensation for pain and suffering. Mr. Brown, before pleading guilty had paid $17,000 in respect of medical expenses and $10,000 which went towards pain and suffering. Mr Claridge, by accepting that money in satisfaction of legitimate claims which he had, benefited tremendously; he did not have to incur lawyer's fees to sue Mr Brown for damages. Those payments, out of court, were not a pay-off which bought Mr Brown a conditional discharge. Lady Justice is blind. Accused persons, standing before Her, have neither colour nor nationality. Every case turns on its own facts. If judicial discretion is taken away from those sitting on the seats of judgment, then, we might as well have trials conducted by members of the legislature acting strictly in adherence to the penalties which they have mandated. In closing, I remind all members of this community of the amendments made, in 2001, to the Criminal Code, with respect to the Purpose and Principles of Sentencing. I implore members of the legislature to confine themselves to matters political and leave the judiciary to execute its functions without fear or favour.EDWARD I KINGCity of Hamilton