Rishard Khan
The calls for clarity in the Vincent Nelson indemnity fiasco continue to grow, but so too does Attorney General Reginald Armour’s silence, citing the concept of “subjudice” as justification.
However, prominent attorney, Kiel Taklalsingh, yesterday explained that this rule does not arise in civil matters such as the one currently before the court for the state’s alleged breach of said agreement.
“I really, with the greatest of respect to the Attorney General, or to anybody, I don’t see how the sub judice rule applies. That is a misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the sub judice rule,” he said speaking during an Opposition press conference on Sunday.
Taklalsingh explained that the rule of sub judice mainly applies in matters going before a jury.
“Subjudice is designed to treat with certain aspects of the justice system. People have the misconception that because a matter is in court, you can’t speak about it. That is wrong. Sub judice was originally designed to protect juries. So if there was a murder case and if everybody’s commenting on the salaciousness of it, you don’t want that commentary affecting a layperson who is a juror and that is where the sub judice rule has come out. It has nothing to do with these civil proceedings,” he said.
He quoted Martin Daly, SC, explaining that any prejudicial statements in civil proceedings will be combated by reason of their professional training and experience.
“What he is saying there is a judge is not an ordinary juror. A judge is trained. He insulates his mind. He knows how to exculpate and exclude things from his mind that may influence him,” he said.
“The matter is not sub judice.”
Taklalsingh said he is not the only entity within the legal profession that is making the assertion.
“It is not only me saying it. Martin Daly has said it. The Law Association has called upon him (the AG) to answer—you think if the Law Association felt it was sub judice that the Law Association would call upon him to answer? The Southern Law Association has called him to answer. The Criminal Bar today- and it is the criminal practitioners who know better than anyone else about sub judice rules because sub judice was designed to protect juries- so if anybody would think that this was sub judice, it would be the Criminal Bar and they have also called for an explanation,” he said.