Gordon Robinson | A Billy Bunter saga

During my brief hiatus from boring you to tears I was forcibly reminded that, as a child, I was a UK subject.

I read the best UK literature including Dickens, Tennyson, Austen, Burns and Shaw. But I always preferred humour so gravitated towards simple British wit available in the works of P.G. Wodehouse (my favourite); Anthony Buckeridge (Jennings and Darbishire series); Richmal Crompton (Just William series) and, of course, Charles Hamilton (pen name Frank Richards).

Hamilton created the hilarious character Billy Bunter, a fat, mischievous schoolboy and star of stories set at Greyfriars, a fictional English public school in Kent, originally published in The Magnet (1908 to 1940). I often wonder if Greyfriars offered any inspiration for J.K. Rowling.

But I digress.

Billy Bunter was always in trouble but often made matters worse by being premature with his defence. As soon as the teacher started investigating misbehaviour Billy would squeal “Not me sir!” thus arousing suspicion where there otherwise might’ve been none.

I remembered Billy Bunter on Tuesday, July 17, when Bobby Montague rose to his hind legs in Parliament to deliver a “Personal Statement”. He began:

“Madam Speaker, as you are aware, I’m being unfairly treated by the Integrity Commission [IC].”

Whoa! Which “Madam Speaker” knows you’re being treated unfairly Billy (oops, sorry, Bobby)? Marissa? Or Juliet, who was in the Chair that day?

An alert Opposition (apologies for the tautology) should’ve immediately objected to that abuse of parliamentary protocol. But Billy/Bobby/Billybob was allowed to ramble on while shielded by parliamentary privilege:

“I’ve been treated with bias, malice and contempt.”

WOW. That’s a whopping trifecta. Any proof of actual bias; irrelevant motive; or refusal to consider your submissions, Billy?

“IC did an investigation into the issuance of firearms licenses and reviews done by [National Security] Ministers between 2012-2018. They couldn’t find one instant where I broke the law; they couldn’t find any abuse of power; they couldn’t find any action resulting from bribery or fraud; and they couldn’t even name me in the final recommendations. They made no recommendations for any action against me. They made no recommendation for me to be referred to any other investigative agency or body.”

PROBLEM

OK, I see the problem now. Awful IC didn’t recommend any adverse action against you. THAT must’ve stung!

This can’t be about THAT report. So, what’s all the cass-cass really about?

“Since I spoke twice in this House, rightfully criticizing the [IC’s] actions, I’ve received an email letter from the Commission requesting additional information on my 2018 to 2022 returns. Then I got another email withdrawing the request. Then as usual I got another email with more requests and even quoting my 2016 returns. Madam Speaker, the second letter was also withdrawn and replaced. But careful reading of the third letter, tells me that it too will be withdrawn!! Three letters and you cannot get it right.”

Allrighty then. The real problem isn’t the past. It’s the present and future. These wicked IC people have allegedly twice corrected e-mails sent to you querying your integrity returns and have sent a third which your crystal ball tells you will also be withdrawn.

What a biased and malicious lot! Assuming what you say is true, how dare they ensure they ask the right questions the right way to ensure they give you every opportunity to be heard comprehensively in response? Charles Barkley would grumble “Turrible!”

But why are they being so evil?

“All because I spoke up for myself, I spoke up for the teachers, the nurses, the doctors, the police, soldiers, civil and public servants, they are trying to scare me. They are trying to shut me up. They are hell-bent on destroying me. Madam Speaker, there’s a witch hunt out on me.”

OMG! Run for the hills! Quick, before IC, mandated by Parliament to monitor and reduce corruption and subject to parliamentary oversight, spends even more time persecuting Billy. Confiscate their torches and stakes!

But why are the witch hunters so focused on Billy?

Is speaking up for yourself and other public servants enough to prompt an IC vendetta? If so then every Opposition member should also be the target of an IC witch hunt. But, Billy, you say it’s all about YOU. So whose tyres did you puncture? With whose spouse did you flirt? Who have you innocently offended? Wha’ yu do dem?

“They are trying to shut me up.” But you still talking Billy. So tell us what they don’t want you to say! Instead, Billy whimpered:

“I understand they are planning to raid my house.”

Ouchie pouchie. Understand how? Was this in the third e-mail? Or is this after consultation with your crystal ball?

Did a friendly birdie in the know whisper to Billy that his house is to be “raided”? If so what business of Parliament is that? IC is expressly empowered to collaborate and co-operate with Police. Parliament can’t interfere with any police investigation.

Maybe if Billy had a family funeral to attend……

“A person from a media house has asked around where I live because they are coming to cover a raid at my house. If this planned raid is a fact, is this an abuse or misuse of power?”

No Silly Billy. What’s an abuse of power is use of Parliament as a platform to whine prematurely about imagined executive action by police and/or IC based on rumour from a journalist. If MP Billy is unlawfully raided, his remedy isn’t in Parliament. Like every other citizen, it’s in court.

Speaking of court remedy available to citizens willing to abide by rule of law rather than abuse parliamentary privilege, this is what Billy had to say about his choice of remedy:

“The report that was laid in March 2022, IC has advised me, publicly, to seek a judicial review. Very well but part 56 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules states in part:

‘An application for leave to apply for judicial review must be made promptly and in any event within three months from the date when grounds for the application first arose’

Even if the Court is minded to grant an extension, which, at times, they do, most times it’s mainly on medical grounds.”

Like the domino player said “foolinshness!”

Firstly, did Billy ask IC to reconsider the report? When? Why didn’t he apply for judicial review within the three months’ period?

Loop News reported on March 13, 2022:

“Both Montague and Bunting have rejected the commission’s report and are engaged in consultations with their attorneys on how to proceed in light of the damning allegations being levelled against them.”

Didn’t Billy’s lawyers advise applying for Judicial Review?

But I must burst this bloated balloon about extension of time “mainly” requiring “medical grounds”. This is rot!

The same Rules Billy quoted allows for extension of time “if good reason….is shown” [Rule 56.6 (2)]. In the decided case of Andrew Bobb v Firearms Licensing Authority, an application for extension of time to apply for judicial review was granted despite being filed 21 and a half months after FLA’s decision.

The “good reason” in that case was that the time was mainly spent trying to exhaust Andrew Bobb’s alternative remedies including an application to FLA Review Board. In England, Maurice Kay J. in R v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry Exparte Greenpeace [2000] stated that good reasons for extending time could include no hardship or prejudice to third party rights; no detriment to good administration were permission granted; and a public interest requirement for the application to proceed.

Medical? Schmedical!

Any law student would advise Billy that time spent asking for reconsideration wouldn’t affect an application for extension of time and, that even now, the Supreme Court would probably allow him to apply for Judicial Review especially taking into account the public interest issues.

So I find it harder than a dry coconut to believe Billy really wants a legal remedy. I believe he wants to whip up political support from a flock of wilfully blind, tribal JLP sheep anxious to destroy a critical anti-corruption watchdog on the altar of political advantage for their beloved shepherd.

THIS personal attack on a Jamaican anti-corruption watchdog comes from the Chairman of an 80 year old political party currently forming Jamaica’s Government. It’s done without apparent sanction or restraint from the Party Leader. As much as PNP seems determined to lose the next election by prioritising disunity JLP seems as anxious to lose by publicly trying to neuter Jamaica’s leading anti-corruption agency.

It’s like a Caymanas Park race for low class claimers with a field of sick, lame and lazy horses that can be beaten by a little old lady with a stick.

Lord, deliver us!

Peace and Love.

Gordon Robinson is an attorney-at-law. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com