Brady stands firm
Published:Tuesday | January 25, 2011 | 12:00 AM
Gary Spaulding, Senior Gleaner Writer
Attorney-at-law Harold Brady is to be hauled before the Half-Way Tree Resident Magistrate's Court over his refusal to testify before the Manatt-Dudus commission of enquiry.
Brady sat in the witness area, but was adamant that he would not testify, prompting Patrick Bailey, the attorney for former state minister in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Dr Ronald Robinson, to ask about the possible consequences.
Bailey was displeased when he heard that if found guilty, sentencing would be placed in the hands of a resident magistrate rather than the commissioners, and that the fine would not exceed $500.
"Taking away arresting powers reduces the commissioners to toothless bulldogs," he complained.
Last week, Brady served two affidavits on the commission, presenting reasons for his decision not to testify at the trial.
But even after commission chairman Emil George ruled that Brady, the attorney who facilitated the engagement of United States law firm, Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, should testify, he flatly said he would not.
The meeting had hardly begun when the fireworks were sparked by Prime Minister Bruce Golding's attorney, Hugh Small.
Possible prejudice
An affidavit from Golding countered Brady's arguments that evidence at the commission of enquiry could prejudice the lawsuit he brought against the prime minister late last year.
A second affidavit from the prime minister brings into evidence the transcript from a radio programme in which Brady was the guest and journalist Emily Crooks a host.
Small told the commission that Crooks was prepared to verify, under oath, the information provided in the transcript of the radio interview.
Small contended the suit that had been brought against Golding could not be undermined as the work of the commission would not trespass on the court action.
"The commission of enquiry is a fact-finding search for truth, and not at the expense of people's rights," Small declared.
He accused Brady of trying himself under the guise of lawyer-client privilege, saying at the least, the issue of a retainer would have to be raised.
The prime minister's attorney also referred to Brady's public statement through the airwaves as evidence that he had spoken on the matter in the public domain.
Declaring that Brady was not being asked to disclose advice given to, or by his client, Small said he was an attorney-at-law who should be bound by the principles of the profession.
But even as Small spoke, Brady's attorney, Georgia Gibson Henlin, reiterated her client's intention not to give testimony and charged that the intervention of the prime minister's lawyer was highly irregular.
She contended that Brady was not operating as a public servant, contrary to statements contained in the summons from the commission of enquiry.
Inquisitorial, not adversarial
She also objected to the inclusion of other attorneys cross- examining Brady, arguing that the enquiry was inquisitorial not adversarial.
"We are asserting attorney-client privilege. He was acting as a client of Manatt and is not prepared to compromise that privilege," declared Gibson Henlin.
Garth McBean, who is marshalling the evidence for the commission, argued that the summons for Brady was much broader than the reference to him as a public official.
McBean also refuted arguments advanced by Brady's attorney in relation to subjudice rule which could be activated by the lawyer-client privilege.
He argued that Brady could not be held in contempt as the commission was set up by statute.
In respect of Brady's claim that lawyer-client privilege could be undermined, McBean said there was no supporting documentary evidence to determine whether Manatt was Brady's client.
"To claim privilege is at the very least premature," McBean suggested.
Patrick Atkinson and Leonard Green, two of the attorneys for the People's National Party who also made submissions, agreed with McBean and Small.
After a 40-minute break to examine the submission, George and his commissioners ruled that Brady should testify.
But Brady's comments were limited.
"My position in this matter has been stated by my attorneys. I will not be participating in this matter and I will not be sworn in," he declared.
"Will you be answering any questions?" queried George.
"No, sir," Brady replied, and with that his lawyers asked permission to leave the conference room.
A clearly peeved Small chimed in, "You don't want permission to do anything except to make a masquerade."