So, some criminal defence lawyers took to the street to protest mandatory minimum sentences in the Firearms Act.
When Government didn’t budge, they went on strike, withdrawing their services on Monday and Tuesday. Organizers of this unusual industrial action were Jamaican Bar Association and Advocates Association.
Full disclosure: First, I’m not a member of either Association. It’s nothing personal but, as a good friend and colleague once said to me “I realize you’re not a joiner.” I’m also not a member of any political party, lodge, alumni association (same thing) or church.
Second, my knowledge of the criminal law is as close to zero as makes no difference. So I make no comment regarding the merits of the arguments for or against the Act’s controversial provisions. But I do have a smattering of knowledge of and experience in lawyerin’ generally so my concerns are all about procedure, practicality, professionalism and productivity.
Lawyers are citizens so entitled to protest any government policy with which they disagree. My initial problem with this protest was the wearing of legal gowns and tabs in the street which I was taught, as a rookie lawyer, was akin to sacrilege. That attire is mandatory and thus only appropriate for appearances in the Supreme Court. It isn’t even worn in the Parish Courts. When I began not only did dinosaurs still roam the earth but robes were worn over a black business suit; white shirt and black tie. They were removed as soon as you left the courtroom and definitely never worn outside the Supreme Court building. Many years later, the profession added white tabs to required Supreme Court attire.
I’m not a fan of these insulting attempts to make me look British. I celebrated when Judges stopped wearing wigs. In my opinion, it’s time, especially in a tropical climate rapidly getting hotter than Princess Di, to dispense with gowns altogether. For the moment they remain with us but restricted to the courtroom.
Over the years I’ve seen young lawyers wearing their gowns and tabs on the street while giving TV interviews. As a Grumpy Old Man who abhors ostentation, I don’t like to see it. It’s worse when I see senior lawyers in robes and/or tabs holding up placards in a street protest. It seems to me to be sending a subliminal message that lawyers are superior beings whose protest must be given special attention for no other reason than that they’re lawyers.
Ugh!
My second concern is the incongruity of lawyers withdrawing services to protest government action. Who are lawyers striking against? They aren’t employed by Government. Even when given legal aid assignments by the court, they remain employed (most lawyers prefer the more high-falutin “retained”) by or on behalf of the accused citizen. None of their employers (clients) have anything to do with legislating the Firearms Act. Withdrawing services only harms accused citizens.
Strikes, demonstrations and wars
Injustice is always the cause
Politicians turn too soon
from poor people into tycoons
Government doesn’t give a flying fig whether more cases are added to Courts’ backlog. To Government, it’s potayto, potahto!
So, surprise, surprise, Prime Minister himself flipped lawyers the metaphorical bird. Lookie here: Governments represent all Jamaicans not any lobby group. If lawyers believe Firearms Act is bad law, they should know the remedy is in court, as it was for NIDS and SOEs, not in the street. If it’s bad policy, even lawyers should know what to do. Another thing I learned as a rookie. No case is ever won in court. There are three ways to victory and they all take place before you enter the courtroom. They are (1) preparation; (2) Preparation; and (3) Preparation!
Do the work. Collect your data. Is the law unpopular? If yes, protest. Is it popular? If yes, first educate. Then lobby. NEVER abandon your clients. Don’t withdraw YOUR services from YOUR clients because you’re miffed at sections of a law passed by Government in its rubber-stamp Parliament.
How on earth does this misguided withdrawal of services, like disgruntled taxi drivers, leverage government to change the law? Once again, common sense proves it’s not common and the legal profession acts as if it’s very common. Experienced human rights lawyers forced changes to the NIDS Act and the imposition of unconstitutional SOEs in court. This lot wants to parade in the streets in legal garb and abandon clients for two days as a way to get bad law changed?
Really? Seriously?
Abandoning your clients is NEVER the way. If the protesting lawyers believe their ill-directed tactics will succeed in changing the law their futures are likely to be laced with disappointment.
One last thing (said Lieutenant Colombo). These lawyers appear too bright for their own good. They’ve ignored one very important fact before organizing their public protests. This law, passed in 2022, is VERY popular among Jamaicans outside the legal profession. Like SOEs were. Why raise misgivings in 2022; then work with the law for four years; THEN mount street protests? Why not show you meant business from 2022?
But if they know they didn’t want federation
and they know they don’t want to unite as one
Independence was at the door
Why didn’t they speak before?
This is no time to say you ain’t federating no more!
Government’s spin that the law helped reduce Jamaica’s murder rate is an easy pill to swallow. Accordingly not many, other than die-hearted PNP supporters, will listen to a word spoken against that illogic unless you can prove disconnect beyond a reasonable doubt.
And every lawyer should know that you cannot prove a negative. The law was passed. The murder rate went down. It can seem obvious to all but the most legally minded that the law must at least have helped. This is a political reality that these lawyers seem to have misdiagnosed or misunderstood while their heads were stuck in some legal textbook.
A week ago we lost my idea of the best songwriter the region has produced namely Slinger Francisco (a.k.a. Mighty Sparrow) at 91. He was a fierce social commentator and a master lyricist whose facility with double entendre was sublime. In my opinion, he had no peer. In 1962 ( Federation), he slammed the Jamaican Government for not speaking up earlier regarding any misgivings about West Indies Federation. But our government was all for Federation. Busta wasn’t. And said so. Nobody listened or believed so the 1961 Referendum, like lawyers recent street protest, shocked the region into realizing Busta’s misgivings were more than just talk. It came as such a surprise that Eric Williams declared “one from ten leaves nought.”
The Federation collapsed.
By 1979 Sparrow was railing against tyrants worldwide like Eric Gairy, Idi Amin, Shah of Iran, Ian Smith and Balthazar Johannes (“John”) Vorster (the last two already deposed) in Wanted Dead or Alive.
The tyrants were all overthrown.
I bet you dollars to donuts this protest will collapse faster than the West Indies Federation. Unlike the SOEs these laws don’t matter before conviction so nobody will have any sympathy for a convicted gun holder including holders of toy guns who haven’t bothered to seek a permit. Politicians will successfully cast lawyers as villains trying to protect violent criminals.
On the streets, where these lawyers have sought to venture despite it being beyond their sphere of influence, politics trumps law every time. So these lawyers knew, or ought to have known, that they weren’t lawyerin’.
They were politicking!
On Monday afternoon on Beyond the Headlines I heard Peter Champagnie, referring to different opinions published on this protest action, quote the old saying “Doctors differ and patients die.”
Yes Peter, but, in my experience, lawyers differ and both get rich. They attract neither support nor sympathy.
Peace and Love.
Gordon Robinson is an attorney-at-law. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com
