Tuesday February 9th, 2010
- Last update:15 hours 5 min ago
Upset Mendes takes Daly to task
‘My advice was private’
Published: 16 Oct 2009
Martin Daly
Douglas Mendes, SC, is upset with the Law Association and its president, Martin Daly, SC, for publishing a “private and confidential” letter which he sent to the association concerning the controversial affidavit of Jamaat al Muslimeen leader, Yasin Abu Bakr. In a letter dated October 15, Mendes said: “I can only conclude that you and your council set about publishing my views without my permission, reckless, if not intending, that I would be embarrassed, both personally and professionally.” Mendes’ letter was in response to one sent the day before by Daly to Attorney General John Jeremie, in which Daly quoted from a document submitted by Mendes.
The whole issue stemmed from Justice Rajendra Narine sending Bakr’s affidavit to the acting Commissioner of Police and the acting Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) for investigations. There have been opposing views from the AG and the Law Association. But Mendes, who represents the AG in civil actions, was very upset at the latest response from the Law Association. He said he immediately called Daly upon hearing that his views had been made public. He said he registered his “deep disappointment” that such publication could have occurred without his permission, and in breach of confidence. Acknowledging that the association was his trade union, Mendes said he expected that the views of members, concerning the administration of justice, would enjoy full confidence. He said after the association stated that Narine had jurisdiction to send the affidavit for investigation, he wrote to Daly, unsolicited, by letter dated September 25, expressing the view that Narine was wrong in what he did.
He said he could have rendered his opinion in any number of public ways. “However, given my involvement in the Bakr case, it would have been awkward, to say the least, for me to have done so,” Mendes said. “In addition, I did not wish to take a public position to the Law Association which could lead to the undermining of its effectiveness in defence of the judiciary.” Mendes said he did not wish to position himself between the AG and the association. But he said he was careful to make plain that his letter was being sent under “private and confidential” cover. “It was therefore clearly wrong of you to make any of it public without my express permission and I am frankly stunned that you have done so,” he added. In his letter, which was circulated to all members of the council, Mendes said Daly solicited his view on conduct, not law. He said there was no request for a formal legal opinion and there was no indication that the e-mail he sent would have been discussed by the entire council, far less being made public.
“I would no more expect you to publish my e-mail, than I would expect you to publish my views expressed in the course of a telephone conversation or over drinks at a cocktail party,” he added. Mendes said he was concerned at the abuse of his right to express such views in confidence. “What is even more regrettable is that for the sake of completeness, I have been forced in this letter to make public other parts of my advice about Justice Narine’s actions which I deliberately sought to avoid by communicating with you under confidential cover,” he said. “My views have been exposed for public scrutiny when it was my clear preference that they be kept between us.” Mendes said he was now forced into a position where he would be extremely guarded in the future about what he says, even in a letter headed “private and confidential.”
DALY RESPONDS
When contacted last night, Daly said: “There is another side to the story. The e-mail I quoted from was not marked ‘private and confidential.’ This followed a request from me to him for advice and urgent assistance. I committed no breach of confidence. A full response will come in due course.”
I would think that if
I would think that if something is not written "Private and Confidential" then it's meant to be used in any way that the person it's addressed to wants to use it. Perhaps Mr. Mendes has a point considering his part in the Abu Bakr case; I'm no lawyer. I will think though that he should have said that he can't offer any advice or personal views when asked by Mr. Daly knowing the situation was an ongoing one. Remember Mr. Daly had said he will respond to the AG when he gets back to Trinidad. The AG had used the opinions of other lawyers so it was very likely that Mr. Daly wiould have done the same. And isn't he now taking a public position against his union as he puts it? Doen't that now undermine the Law Association? Is Mr. Mendes afraid of getting blacklisted as a lawyer by the people in charge? No more wuk fum we!
Anyhow, the confusion just keeps getting worse and worse. What a sweet place Trinidad is! Well, the plot is getting, as someone said, "thickerah and thickerah".
I await the outcome with bated breath
I find it strange that Daly
I find it strange that Daly choose to make public Mandes's correspondence rightly criticizing the AG's response to the Law Association but failing to publish Mendes's correspondence of the 25th expressing the view that justice Narine was wrong. I quote
"He said after the association stated that Narine had jurisdiction to send the affidavit for investigation, he wrote to Daly, unsolicited, by letter dated September 25, expressing the view that Narine was wrong in what he did."
If this is really so I think Daly should call on himself to resign.
Douglas Mendez, aren't you
Douglas Mendez, aren't you being a bit thin skinned? And to Mr. Daly, you're doing your work at a great personal sacifice....keep it up.
...Dougie is too overly
...Dougie is too overly concerned about his privacy...including how many millions of the people's money he is being paid to keep Patos out of jail.....
IS THIS THE SAME MENDEZ?
IS THIS THE SAME MENDEZ? -
Is this the same Mendez that the government refused to tell taxpayers how much of our money they were paying him? Was that private and confidential too? We pay for these little boys to study, we are proud that they bright. We put them in positions of power and they kick we in we behind. I know of a friend of the family who took her son out of school and put him to learn a trade. We asked why she said he was too bright he might thief. We found that so ridiculous. Was it really, maybe after some years she might have had a point.
Fairplay, my friend, isn't
Fairplay, my friend, isn't life interesting. We learn something new every day. Keeps us on our toes.
Enjoy your day my friend .. it's going to be an interesting one.
Gardenia
Daly may be wrong on this
Daly may be wrong on this one... I have an expectation to privacy in all my correspondence/phone calls and if someone wishes to use it, then they normally seek my permission. Even my phone number and email is sacred, and not to be shared among all and sundry.
The exception is in a dispute, then anything I say can be used against me.
Jumbie's Watch
Jumbie's Watch, I do
Jumbie's Watch, I do understand the guiding principle in your point of view.
However, in today's world our "expectation of privacy" is not what it used to be, especially in T&T. Doctor/patient, lawyer/client, etc. may still hold its value, except under extenuating circumstances.
In the Mustill Inquiry a private conversation was used. Mr. Cassell, Q.C. repeated a private conversation he had with Mr. Sat Sharma (then A.G.) on the plane coming in from London - 'It was the position of hindus to have the wife take care of the family finances.' re. the Panday case? Correct me if I am wrong.
- A Gentleman's silent agreement?
Gardenia
'Cockroach musn't interfere
'Cockroach musn't interfere in fowl business' (otherwise it may be eaten). My cyberfriends, Jumbie prima facie seems to have a 'more correct' view on this 'privacy' thing. It's always implied that one's transactions in the bank, doctors' visits, medical history, email address, postcards, love letters, etc are covered by the caveat 'doh tell nobody but...', except if those things are in the public domain or are compelled by a court order so to be, or you give written or verbal permission. Even your image, your 'bold' face which people seeing everyday, may not be published without your 'Express' permission in most circumstances.
But Trinidad is a place, once your 'farse' (nosey) neighbour Ms Harry or Mr Ram know your business, 'your business on the road', meaning, 'everybody done know', as if these people are the 'Guardian' or the 'Evening News'.
This 'cockroach' ain't no lawyer and this blog ain't private, so you have my permission to quote it. Pleasant day.
ajfyzabadbutlertown
fyzabadbutlertown, my legal
fyzabadbutlertown, my legal adviser/bush doctor - this cockroach understands fully.
In principle J.W. is correct.
Curiousity - just had to raise a question.
These guys are playing in the big leagues, and I am way out in left field, as simply an observer.
There are some points I would like to put forward to you, but I think I will leave it for another time when the waters are less choppy. Keep those watchful eyes in this direction, as I tend to become 'bulls eye' target. Thanks.
Enjoy your day, my friend.
Gardenia
Caribbean Flower Lady, I'm
Caribbean Flower Lady, I'm told by someone living up in the 'Cold' that a lot of Trinis read your valuable comments. Keep on 'typing'.
ajfyzabadbutlertown
GLAD TO BE OF
GLAD TO BE OF SERVICE:-
Always a pleasure transferring some T&T warmth up to the "Cold" -
especially now with the season changing. Thanks.
Gardenia
Private conversation? Mr.
Private conversation?
Mr. Cassell, Q.C. repeated a private conversation he had with Mr. Sat Sharma (then A.G.) on the plane coming in from London - 'It was the position of hindus to have the wife take care of the family finances.' re. the Panday case?
There are always rules to every exception, but coming back to this scenario you mentioned... how many 'third parties' were present? The expectation to privacy is not absolute, for example had a steward/ess (I'm a Grumpy Old Man) overheard the conversation, would s/he be held to the same expectation to privacy as Cassell and Sharma? Who agreed that the plane conversation was private?
On the other hand, the expectation to privacy for Mr Mendes is considerably higher if the communication (letter or email)was sent to only Mr Daly.
Still looking as if Mr Daly committed a rare faux pas.
Jumbie's Watch
Jumbie's_Watch, no
Jumbie's_Watch, no objections here.
I am not fluent on either side: Legal knowledge or dabbled as a client. So I will have to sit on the fence on this one. Simply threw a 'monkey wrench' in. Will be sitting in the Viewing Gallery.
.."Grumpy Old Man" - never crossed my mind, Oh Wise One.
Gardenia
Beyond the privacy issue,
Beyond the privacy issue, I'm wondering what implications this whole exchange will have for the Abu Bakr / Mr Manning issue?
ajfyzabadbutlertown
On the other hand Gardenia,
On the other hand Gardenia, there is something to be said for this issue being in the public's interest... which would allow some flexing of Mendes muscles but amount to hot air... (^_^)
Jumbie's Watch
JUMBIE'S_WATCH : - OH WISE
JUMBIE'S_WATCH : -
OH WISE ONE, we will just have to wait and see.
We are becoming accoustomed to waiting; not that we like it.
.. But it's now a fact of life.
Add this one to the long list of:-
- TO DO / PENDING
Gardenia
I would be surprised if Daly
I would be surprised if Daly is so silly to fall for that trap.
We are not talking about average matters related to 'confidence' at a personal level. There are general criteria for breaching confidence. If you go to a doctor and say 'I goin' kill mehself doh tell nobody' - the doctor is most instances is not obliged to keep your confidence. Similarly, if you say to ah gardner in Aranguez, 'Ah going and shoot up the Hall of Justice'. S/he doh bong to keep your confidence.
There are limits to what can be kept in confidence. Certainly when for example the central pillars of democracy are threatened, or when there is extreme high level corruption, or where there is knowledge of a grossly illegal act of overriding public interest - there are good grounds for breaching confidence! (and my list above is not exhaustive).
However, information shared does not have to be written 'private and confidential' for it to be kept a secret. There are certain situations where the confidential nature of information is presumed to be confidential. The context of the information, how it is received etc is important.
Some breaches of confidence are protected by Statute - as in the UK where you have the Public Disclosure Act - and doctors in the UK are protected in certain circumstances from any action arising from certain breaches of confidence.
So - allyuh fellas need to think a li'le harder, eh.
Where has the honour and
Where has the honour and respect among scoundrels disappeared to?.
Mendes claims the e-mail was
Mendes claims the e-mail was deliberately marked private and confidential; Daly says he quoted from another e-mail which was not marked private and confidential. These are two eminently prominent SCs. What are we to make of this?
If Mendes is acting on behalf of the AG and the AG has already vehemenently made public his views which he has not since changed, one would conclude that these views are shared by Mendes and confirmed to Daly by an open and unrestricted e-mail.
Mendes' views which are at variance with the Law Association's are well known by the public. So there is no betrayal of any secrets involved. Mendes should be proud to defend the courage of his convictions.
Pedantic, even if
Pedantic, even if fluffy
Pedantic: overly concerned with minute details or formalisms, esp. in teaching.
Source: dictionary.com
Mr Mendes refers to a letter he sent to Mr Daly, which was marked as "Private and Confidential" and then subsequently refers to sending Mr Daly an email.
Mr Daly says he quoted from an email.
If you tell me you sent me a letter, I am thinking about a physical document by post or hand delivered. If you send me an email, I am thinking about something transmitted electronically. I find this just amazing particularly in the legal profession where a comma in the wrong place can change the meaning/interpretation of that paragraph and possibly the whole document. Hence, if you look at a lot of legal documents, there are few commas. So, an email is not a letter (in my pink book), nor is a letter an email. If it is a 'letter' sent in a Word document or pdf by 'email', I expect to hear "the letter sent by email". Therefore, just saying I sent you an email (informal communication) is not the same as saying I sent you a letter (formal communication).
In any event, it was something that was communicated between colleagues (I would like to think). And, if my understanding is correct, Mr Mendes did not say anything "privately" which differed from what was in the public domain. If he had, ie. criticising the AG or the goverment then, that would have been different.
How Mr Daly's communication got into the public domain... is another question, even though this is Trinbago we are talking about.
He (Mr Mendes) was now forced into a position where he would be extremely guarded in the future.
Okay, so he wasn't "extremely guarded" before? It has been common knowledge for sometime (even as laypersons) not to put something in writing (or even say something) that you would not otherwise want in the the "public domain". Just look at all the emails sent 'in confidence' in previous years which have either brought huge personal embarassment to the original sender; or resulted in huge industry fines (eg. investment banking, equity research and strict imposition of 'Chinese Walls' and may the two business divisions never talk/share opinions).
In a similar vein, I have long heard it said, you never, ever, EVER (!) have an interview with a media person and say "I am telling you this in confidence" or "Off the record", because, YOU are always on record and you never know when your "off the record" comment, comes back and bites a chunk out of your posterior, pert or otherwise.
But, for some reason, people continue to be more relaxed about their 'email' communications than they would be if they were sending a physical letter. If I am not mistaken, UK law allows for emails to be admitted as court evidence. What our law position is, I do not know.
E-mail is something of an informal medium, and individuals may often write things in an e-mail that they would not include in a standard letter or memo.
Source: www.out-law.com/default.aspx?page=5537
Therefore, for Mr Mendes to say that he did not expect his communication to at least be circulated amongst his colleagues at the Law Association is a tad naive, if you ask me.
Incidentally, I think even text messages are being accepted as evidence, in certain situations eg. dismissal by text accepted in unfair dismissal cases as evidence against the employer. Therefore, text messages could potentially bite the thumb of the sender, at a later stage.
Moral of the story? Sender(s) beware!
La Diva
Your honour, I believe Mr.
Your honour, I believe Mr. Martin Daly SC has strewn some fine grains of aggregate into Mr. Mendez's staple source of carbohydrates. I respectfully submit to the court that Mr. Mendez SC has the right to defend an outright and vivious attack on his kakada! Mr. Daly's comments seek to deny my client's right to use the FOIA to claim privacy and confidentiality to hide more kakada that has been promised him by the honourable AG. This amounts to a denial of my client's constitutional right to property (more kakada)
More kaka period, as in kaka
More kaka period, as in kaka poule or kaka chien..
La Diva Mia! Mama mia!
La Diva Mia! Mama mia! Pedantic? Even fluffy? How fluffy? As fluffy as an elegant Persian pussy's tail swishing from side to side?
Aye man Prince, please leave
Aye man Prince, please leave La Diva's Persian's pussy out of this.
Lady, is not me who keep
Lady, is not me who keep drawing attention to it and flaunting it all over the place.
Umm Prince
Umm Prince
Was that comment for me or for epsomsalts? (^*^)
As for flaunting? Nah! Just trying to get the syntax right. (^_~)
As for Epsomsalts!
You looking for trouble or what? 'Cause trouble sure seems to be looking for you! If ever there was an example of why pensioners should remain 'gainfully employed', this is it! (^*^)
PS. You want Mr Mendes to get even more upset that we are not taking his 'upset' more seriously?
(You guys are funny!)
La Diva
Diva mia, is only one
Diva mia, is only one Persian it got on the block. I wasn't aware that Mr Epsom has one too. You could never tell these days. Sorry if it's causing too many problems, but only trying to cheer you up in all this gloom and doom. Take good care of it and I'm sure you'll be unaminous in this.
You have Mendes to study? Bet your bottom dollar and Molly's too, that he ain't have you to study, as long as Manning & Jeremie keep handing him these lucrative briefs. If I was a conspiracy theorist, I'd say they're all conspiring to create all this litigiousness just for money spinning and everybody getting a cut. But I don't think they'll stoop to this. After all they are honourable men, and Calder is an honourable man; they're all honourable men.
The Prince of Toms.