The Tribune

By RASHAD ROLLE

Tribune Staff Reporter

rrolle@tribunemedia.net

THE fact that embattled MICAL MP V Alfred Gray spoke to a magistrate about a case outside of formal court proceedings is “unseemly”, a former attorney general told The Tribune yesterday.

Mr Gray is currently caught up in a police probe into allegations of judicial interference over reports that he contacted Mayaguana island Administrator Zephaniah Newbold to offer “legal advice” concerning a young man convicted in his constituency and sentenced to a three month prison term. Mr Newbold was the magistrate who presided over that case.

Mr Gray has admitted that he spoke to Mr Newbold but has stressed that he did nothing to sway the course of justice.

However, a former attorney general who spoke to The Tribune on the condition of anonymity yesterday said what Mr Gray has admitted to doing constitutes an “error of judgment.”

“If anyone were to attempt to influence the decision of someone exercising a judicial discretion, other than by means of due process, where both sides are present and making submissions – anything outside of that is not appropriate,” the former attorney general said.

“It is at the very least unseemly and open to misinterpretation. It’s best to stay clear of that sort of thing. It would’ve been an error in judgment even to do what the minister said he did simply because it would lead to this kind of controversy.”

Current Attorney General Allyson Maynard Gibson confirmed last week that the matter involving Mr Gray has been turned over to the Royal Bahamas Police Force for investigation.

Last Wednesday, Prime Minister Perry Christie said Mr Gray asked to be relieved of his portfolio of local government pending the results of the investigation. However, he still retains his substantive post as minister of agriculture and marine resources.

The former attorney general who spoke to The Tribune yesterday said the chief magistrate and chief justice should play a key role in dealing with the matter.

“With respect to whether the course of justice was impacted, that’s a matter of evidence and a matter of somebody making inquiries,” the former attorney general said. “The chief magistrate would be the one to look into it and give a report to the chief justice and the chief justice would make recommendations to the attorney general who would be a liaison with the chief justice to the executive. The chief justice would look at it from an administrative role because ultimately he is the chief officer and would make representation concerning the matter.”

The former attorney general said ultimately the prime minister must determine what should be done to ensure that the public’s confidence in the judicial system is not eroded.

“Anything to do with the whole question of our judicial system is founded on confidence,” he said. “So it goes to public confidence. If that is undermined then you have a real problem and people tend to be suspicious of public officers, rightly or wrongly. It is just easy for people to feel that, if that happened it might happen again or it might have been happening previously. People start to question whether you have an independent magistracy or judiciary.”

The solution to a possible loss of confidence, he said, is to “deal with (the investigation) in a transparent matter.”

He added: “Our Constitution is founded on the convention that the executive does not interfere with judicial discretion. The Cabinet needs to address its own conduct and conduct of its members, although obviously (Mr Gray) probably wasn’t acting on any Cabinet authority.”

The Official Opposition has called for Mr Gray to resign from Cabinet or be fired over the controversy.