Jehovah's witnesses in NIB Battle
By KRYSTEL ROLLE ~ Guardian Staff Reporter ~ krystel@nasguard.com:
In a dispute that stretches back nearly two decades, the attorney representing a group of Jehovah's Witnesses made a final attempt yesterday to convince the Court of Appeal to overturn a Supreme Court decision which requires his clients to continue to make National Insurance contributions.
Attorney W. P. Cathcart, who represents Glen Alexander Colebrooke and the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses of The Bahamas, laid out several reasons yesterday why the appellate court justices should do so.
The Jehovah's Witnesses are appealing the entire ruling of Justice Stephen Isaacs, who dismissed their application for a review of a National Insurance Board's (NIB) decision that requires 28 Witnesses to make the contributions for a small monthly stipend that they receive.
Members of the faith are not paid for service in the congregations, however, full-time branch workers like Colebrooke and traveling representatives get a modest monthly allowance.
NIB has said that this arrangement constitutes a contract of employment and the funds must be taxed. But the Witnesses said Colebrooke's duties at the branch were voluntary and that he should not be required to make the payments to the NIB fund because the money is a stipend, not a salary.
In September 2008, Isaacs ruled that there was no basis on which the court can grant the review. He said the Witnesses did not avail themselves of the appeal process to the Supreme Court as allowed by law. He noted that the appeal had to be launched on a question of law within 21 days after delivery of a decision by the Board, and a judicial review had to be launched within six months after that decision.
Isaacs noted then that NIB made the decision on January 27, 1992, that the ministers were employed persons and must pay contributions under the Act. Isaacs, in his judgment, noted that there was no appeal from that determination. However, he added that NIB should have allowed the Witnesses to be a part of the process. They were not told of the decision until after an NIB meeting had already convened.
On several occasions, the Witnesses, through their attorney, wrote NIB asking it to revisit the decision. However, on April 12, 2005 and again on February 16, 2006, NIB continued to reaffirm its original decision.
It wasn't until August 16, 2006 that the Witnesses sought leave to apply for a judicial review.
Isaacs said although the procedure for convening and conducting the hearing in 1992 was not strictly followed, the applicants stated in writing that they were not seeking a formal review.
In the Court of Appeal yesterday, Cathcart said the decision of NIB has to be an error. He said the Witnesses never entered into an employment contract with The Worldwide Order of Special Full-Time Servants of Jehovah's Witnesses. He also pointed out that the Witnesses are volunteers and have all taken a vow of poverty.
Court of Appeal President Dame Joan Sawyer said her difficulty with the matter is that while the Witnesses help the poor and perform other social services duties, the tax that they are now required to pay to the government is used to help the same type of people who they want to assist.
She also questioned whether NIB presented sufficient evidence to the court to make a proper determination.
She told attorney Harvey Tynes, who represents NIB, that he was not given all of the facts by the people who were directing him.
For instance, she said she does not know whether Baptist ministers or Mormons are made to pay taxes.
She said if a tax exemption for ministers is a constitutional norm, then it must be applied across the board.
Dame Joan said she is unsure how she will frame her judgment.
She wondered what effects her decision would have on society and the administration of justice.
She added that while it is not her job to mull over such issues, in a society that is as small as The Bahamas, justices have to think about the effects of their decisions.
In addition to Dame Joan, Justices Christopher Blackman and Stanley John presided over the case.
They reserved judgment in the case.
June 02, 2010
thenassauguardian
An International Caribbean Online Log about the news and opinions in the Americas and World. This Caribbean Blog of global reach and appeal is maintained by Bahamian Blogger - Dennis Dames with all readers and subscribers in mind.
Showing posts with label Dame Joan Sawyer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dame Joan Sawyer. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Bahamas: Criminal justice in crisis
IN A few weeks time the Prime Minister will give his state of the nation message, which will deal with many subjects of importance. Crime will obviously feature high on his agenda.
This will be the deciding year -- either the criminals will get control or the community, the police and the judiciary will unite to return law and order to the nation.
Today the criminal seems to have the upper hand. In other words he is literally getting away with murder.
The judge who returns a person to the streets on remand is not doing that person a favour. Some would have been safer behind bars for whatever length of time they would have had to await trial. In the interim several of them have been killed.
But let's look at it from the point of view of the accused. Recently we were told by one -- a tinge of sarcastic bitterness in his voice -- "Man I just working for my lawyer!"
Translated that comment meant that he fully realised that with a criminal record he had no hope of finding a job once he was returned to the streets on remand. The reality of life was that he had to eat, secure lodging and in many cases try to support a family. Unable to work, he had to continue a life of crime, and the crime had to be lucrative enough to provide lawyer's fees against the day he was caught and had to again plead "not guilty" before the bar of justice. His future depended upon that lawyer using his debating skills and the knowledge of the law to keep him out of prison. And so for him -- and the community -- the cycle of crime continues.
There is then the even more frightening phenomenon of the intimidation of witnesses. Even from behind their prison bars witnesses are being intimidated by certain accused persons. Witnesses have often recanted through fear.
A person who has nothing to lose, but everything to gain by using his wits will go to criminal lengths to secure his freedom. And some of these men, sitting in a jail cell, are going to those criminal lengths to intimidate a community.
We have heard of a case of an accused, in jail, using a cell phone to contact a leading witness in his case to say what would happen to him if he testified. Imagine in prison with a cell phone. Imagine what would happen to trials if witnesses are silenced through fear. No one would go to prison and justice would have to take its course on the streets.
For prisoners to have cells phones in prison -- and this has been reported on many occasions in the past -- there has to be a severe breach of security at the prison. The police should do a thorough investigation and get to the bottom of this. From what we understand, this particular prisoner is not the only one who is managing his affairs from a prison cell with the aid of a cell phone.
There was another instance, which we are told took place not too long ago during a hearing in the Nassau Street magistrate's court. The accused is said to have lifted his hand showing his palm to the witness in the box. The number 186 was written on the palm.
Later the witness asked the significance of 186. The reply was that in "street language" 186 meant that the accused planned to instruct his "boys" to shoot up the witness and all his family in a "drive by."
And then there are the lawyers. Much of the case backlog is caused by lawyers, either because they are not prepared, have too many cases going on at the same time and need postponements, or are just using delaying tactics in hopes that the case will fall off the court calendar for want of many things, not the least among them the absence of witnesses. The court system not only needs an overhaul, but on the part of lawyers a return to discipline, efficiency and respect for the court's time.
As for some of the judges -- that's another story. Sometimes we wonder if they live on the same planet and are aware of what they are doing to the community when they return, not once, but twice and in a few cases three times, murder accused to the community to await trial. There have been occasions when these accused have killed each other and saved the court time, but there also have been occasions when an innocent bystander has been caught in the cross fire.
Last year Dame Joan Sawyer, Appeals Court judge, ruled that in bail decisions if a judge has to warn the bail applicant not to interfere with witnesses, then that applicant should not be granted bail.
We understand that one of that august body retorted that if that were the case then he would not give such warnings in the future for fear of the Attorney General's office applying to revoke the bail.
These are the problems that the Prime Minister and parliamentarians have to face, because legislation is obviously needed to deal with some of them.
January 04, 2010
tribune242
This will be the deciding year -- either the criminals will get control or the community, the police and the judiciary will unite to return law and order to the nation.
Today the criminal seems to have the upper hand. In other words he is literally getting away with murder.
The judge who returns a person to the streets on remand is not doing that person a favour. Some would have been safer behind bars for whatever length of time they would have had to await trial. In the interim several of them have been killed.
But let's look at it from the point of view of the accused. Recently we were told by one -- a tinge of sarcastic bitterness in his voice -- "Man I just working for my lawyer!"
Translated that comment meant that he fully realised that with a criminal record he had no hope of finding a job once he was returned to the streets on remand. The reality of life was that he had to eat, secure lodging and in many cases try to support a family. Unable to work, he had to continue a life of crime, and the crime had to be lucrative enough to provide lawyer's fees against the day he was caught and had to again plead "not guilty" before the bar of justice. His future depended upon that lawyer using his debating skills and the knowledge of the law to keep him out of prison. And so for him -- and the community -- the cycle of crime continues.
There is then the even more frightening phenomenon of the intimidation of witnesses. Even from behind their prison bars witnesses are being intimidated by certain accused persons. Witnesses have often recanted through fear.
A person who has nothing to lose, but everything to gain by using his wits will go to criminal lengths to secure his freedom. And some of these men, sitting in a jail cell, are going to those criminal lengths to intimidate a community.
We have heard of a case of an accused, in jail, using a cell phone to contact a leading witness in his case to say what would happen to him if he testified. Imagine in prison with a cell phone. Imagine what would happen to trials if witnesses are silenced through fear. No one would go to prison and justice would have to take its course on the streets.
For prisoners to have cells phones in prison -- and this has been reported on many occasions in the past -- there has to be a severe breach of security at the prison. The police should do a thorough investigation and get to the bottom of this. From what we understand, this particular prisoner is not the only one who is managing his affairs from a prison cell with the aid of a cell phone.
There was another instance, which we are told took place not too long ago during a hearing in the Nassau Street magistrate's court. The accused is said to have lifted his hand showing his palm to the witness in the box. The number 186 was written on the palm.
Later the witness asked the significance of 186. The reply was that in "street language" 186 meant that the accused planned to instruct his "boys" to shoot up the witness and all his family in a "drive by."
And then there are the lawyers. Much of the case backlog is caused by lawyers, either because they are not prepared, have too many cases going on at the same time and need postponements, or are just using delaying tactics in hopes that the case will fall off the court calendar for want of many things, not the least among them the absence of witnesses. The court system not only needs an overhaul, but on the part of lawyers a return to discipline, efficiency and respect for the court's time.
As for some of the judges -- that's another story. Sometimes we wonder if they live on the same planet and are aware of what they are doing to the community when they return, not once, but twice and in a few cases three times, murder accused to the community to await trial. There have been occasions when these accused have killed each other and saved the court time, but there also have been occasions when an innocent bystander has been caught in the cross fire.
Last year Dame Joan Sawyer, Appeals Court judge, ruled that in bail decisions if a judge has to warn the bail applicant not to interfere with witnesses, then that applicant should not be granted bail.
We understand that one of that august body retorted that if that were the case then he would not give such warnings in the future for fear of the Attorney General's office applying to revoke the bail.
These are the problems that the Prime Minister and parliamentarians have to face, because legislation is obviously needed to deal with some of them.
January 04, 2010
tribune242
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)