Allegations: Dr Brown, Lawyers, OBA Respond

June 16, 2011

Former Premier Dr Ewart Brown, his lawyers and the One Bermuda Alliance [OBA] have all responded to the news that the Police have ‘commenced inquiries’ into the allegations made by David Bolden.

Dr Brown has sought the services of QC Jerome Lynch to assist Mark Pettingill and Marc Daniels, and has also challenged David Bolden to “name the government Minister who purportedly brought him a message from me.”

Charter Chambers, who are representing Dr Brown, noted he wished to pursue perjury proceedings against Mr Bolden, and said they “have advised Dr. Brown it is not viable to initiate a prosecution against Bolden at this time in light of the announcement that there is to be a formal investigation into Boldens claim.”

The Royal Gazette reported earlier this week that David Bolden made allegations in reference to Dr Brown while on the stand of his Supreme Court trial. The allegations were not reported during the trial due to legal reasons.

Mr Bolden and his wife Antoinette Bolden were accused of stealing from their company Emerald Capital and laundering some of the money. On June 14th, the couple were found guilty of one count of misleading the Bermuda Monetary Authority, and were acquitted on 18 charges of theft and money laundering.

OBA Leader Mr. John Barritt today [June 16] welcomed the Police Commissioner’s announcement that detectives had launched an investigation into allegations. Trevor Moniz, Shadow Minister of Justice and Attorney General, said the Bolden allegations, “if true, and taken together with other questions, including matters being investigated by the Auditor General, raise serious questions…”

“…It is essential Police get to the bottom of these grave assertions,” said Mr Moniz.

In a statement issued this evening Dr Brown said, “Further to my initial statement, I had indicated that I would pursue a private prosecution for perjury against David Bolden because of the wholly unfounded allegations he made at his recent trial. I have sought the services of Queen’s Counsel Jerome Lynch to assist Mark Pettingill and Marc Daniels toward that end.”

“Since my initial statement, there has been an announcement that there is to be a formal police investigation into the matter. I wish to make it crystal clear that I welcome that investigation and will assist in whatever way I can. It is not without significance that the one count Bolden is convicted of is lying to the Bermuda Monetary Authority, which is an imprisonable offense.”

“I challenge Bolden or anyone else to repeat that allegation in public without the protection afforded by the system that says that no one can be prosecuted for defamation for words uttered in Court. I also challenge Bolden to name the government Minister who purportedly brought him a message from me,” concluded Dr Brown.

Charter Chambers, who are representing Dr Brown, said As you know Dr. Brown wanted to issue proceedings as soon as possible for perjury against David Bolden and instructed us in this regard. We have advised Dr. Brown it is not viable to initiate a prosecution against Bolden at this time in light of the announcement that there is to be a formal investigation into Boldens claims.”

The statement from the lawyers also made reference to their concerns that about the process, in part as Mr Bolden is awaiting sentencing for his recent conviction and they feel there is an “obvious risk” is that he might “attempt to ameliorate his own position.”

Charter Chambers concluded by saying, “We are optimistic the police will be cautious in this regard.”

Read More About

Category: All, Court Reports, News

Comments (55)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. College Graduate says:

    When Gettin Money Gets Outta Control

    And Why Do The OBA Care About Dr. Brown? Arn’t They A New Party..hmmm

  2. itwasn'tme says:

    No takers>? Terry, Sandgrownan, 32 64, triangle drifter, SMH, Niclole? Anyone there? hellooooooooo

    they must be at Bingo round de yacht club ;-)

    • James says:

      Give em time, you know they’re salivating right now!

      • sandgrownan says:

        Well, what do you want me to say?

        I’m pretty much delighted that Brown’s alleged MO is seeing daylight. I suspect though, that through the “friends and family” plan, those involved will keep quiet. Nothing will come of this.

        Beyond that, other comments on Brown’s alleged MO, anecdotal evidence for example, will be censored.

        Bermudian’s are largely blind to this because “the UBP did it..blah blah”…

      • Scott says:

        lol im feeling a little left out here… but anyway..

        ya def love the news.. but at the end of the day, these are things people have suspected anyway, its just never been outright said under oath..this is no surprise.. and its also no surprise that nothing will come of it, neither proving it, nor disproving it.

        even if it is found to be true, the same head-butting comments will come up where anti-browners will say “we told you so” and pro-browners will say “the investigation is a conspiracy to bring down a strong black leader..”

  3. So what says:

    Its really too bad that Mr. Pettingill decided to take this case. Of course Dr. Brown has a right to be represented but how can Mr. Pettingill possibly represent Dr. Brown professionally when he is a political rival. Bad move. It sounds like Mr. Pettingill puts his bank account before his political career. OBA should ask him to resign.

    • Rich says:

      It’s called the cab rank rule. If you hold yourself out for a particular service (here, litigation) and someone seeks to instruct you, as counsel, you can’t cherry pick the clients you want. The circumstances in which you are allowed to decline to act for someone are very limited; indeed, paragraph 78 of the Bar’s Code of Conduct states:

      “A barrister should not refuse to act for a person merely because that person is unpopular or notorious or because he is espousing an unpopular cause or because he is charged with a particular criminal offence; nor should he be affected by the fact that powerful interests may be involved in the matter in respect of which he is asked to act.”

      • Pastor Syl says:

        Thank you, Rich, for explaining that matter. I, too, was questioning, first, why Mr. Pettingill would have agreed to defend his political rival, and more to the point, why Dr. Brown would have chosen him as his lawyer anyway.

        There are a myriad of lawyers within the PLP, so my mind was wrestling with issues like: “doesn’t Dr. Brown trust the skills of his own followers,” and “is Dr. Brown being Machiavellian here and trying to create more confusion?”

        Now I understand that neither of them had a choice.

        • Rich says:

          Paster Syl – I also wondered re: Dr Brown taking on the services of Mr Pettingill. As you said, there are tons of skilled litigators in the PLP. Maybe he wanted political cover? Perhaps he feels so strongly about the allegations he wants a political ‘enemy’ to go through everything with a fine-tooth comb?

          Or maybe it was just for practical reasons and we shouldn’t be cynical and see sinister intentions when there may not be any; maybe Dr Brown genuinely thought Mr Pettingill was the best person to represent him, or maybe he was the only one who had time or who wasn’t swamped with work? Or maybe he wanted to take advantage of Mr Pettingill’s new relationship with a London-based Chambers so he could easily get the assistance of a Queen’s Counsel?

          So hard to speculate.

          • Scott says:

            or ..conspiracy theory.. he wants pettingill to do the case, say in court that EB has an excellent reputation and is of fine character.. then after the trial he’ll (or PLP) will use that too attack pettingill during election time, saying he’ll jump sides just for money???

            :P

            (and yes, this is semi-sarcastic, before it gets jumped on)

      • So What says:

        Thanks Rich – did not know that. However, I wasn’t suggesting Mr.Pettingill should refuse on these grounds, but rather that he is a political opponent. Is there not an exception here? Doesn’t Mr.Pettingill have a conflict of interest defending Dr. Brown? It would be similar to asking Mr. Pettingill to defended someone who robbed his brother. If there is no exception, then maybe we should not have litigation lawyers as political candidates….wonder what Mr. Barritt is thinking?

        • Rich says:

          The other provision which may be of interest is paragraph 7:

          “A barrister has a duty to uphold the interest of his client without regard to his own interest or to any consequences to himself or to other person.”

          And paragraph 80:

          “Subject to the provisions of this Code, a barrister may not decline to defend any person on whose behalf he is instructed on a criminal charge because of any belief or opinion which he may have formed as to the guilt or innocence of that person.”

          What this generally means is that even in your hypothetical example re: defending someone who has robbed Mr Pettingill, he may still be duty bound to represent that individual. There may be some scope to refuse if it might affect his ability to defend the accused, but on the flip side, if you chose to take that brief, there’s nothing compelling you to refuse to act.

          I’m actually more familiar with practice at the English Bar which is far stricter on these sorts of matters, so I’d rather defer to a Bermudian lawyer who knows how the Code works in practice. The rules behind representation are mainly designed to ensure that if someone wants legal representation, they will get it. If you don’t like someone because you don’t share their same political opinions, basically tough on you. And any interests you have have to be put to the side because you’re there to put someone’s case across to the court.

          By way of example consider this: Michael Mansfield QC is one of Britain’s top defence lawyers. In the 1970s, at the height of the troubles with Northern Ireland, there were a series of terrorist blasts across London. One targeted the Old Bailey. Mr Mansfield was also targeted and his car blew up, though luckily, he himself was not in the car. At the time, when some of these Irish terrorists were being put on trial, very few defence lawyers wanted anything to do with these men. Mr Mansfield, however, took it upon himself to ensure that these chaps had access to counsel and represented one of the alleged masterminds of the bombing campaign at trial. He didn’t have to give evidence himself since there was nothing he could give on issue.

          Not precisely on point and probably an extreme example but this was the origin of the cab rank rule in the UK. I hope it gives a flavour as to just how importantly the Bar regards access to legal counsel.

        • Scott says:

          perhaps the fact that EB is no longer premier or an MP means that its not legally a conflict of interest? they are not technically political opponents anymore?

        • Truth be Told says:

          @so what….By your logic as to why Mr.Pettingill should refuse to represent Dr. Brown, one could say that if Mr.Pettingill had a life threatenning illness and sought Dr.Browns Medical services that Dr. Brown should be allowed to refuse him because he is a “political opponent and conflict of interest”???? No because the code that Doctors uphold insures that doesn’t take place as the Bar code does here.

          • Scott says:

            thats actually not accurate at all…

            the issue here is that Pettingills political position is generally arguing against Dr Brown (when he was in power), and try to attack his character or his policy. his law career puts him in a position to do the exact opposite, argue for dr brown, support his character, and make it known that his policy (in this case conduct) is not corrupt.

            your example of dr brown being able to deny medical service to pettingill professionaly would only apply if dr browns political position/job was to actually make his political opponents sick…

            the conflict of interest isnt because they are/were political opponents, its because what he does politically and what he does professionaly in this case are two sides of the same coin..

            • Rich says:

              I’m having a hard time appreciating what conflict you are seeing especially now that Dr Brown is a private citizen. Mark Pettingill’s job qua MP is to represent his constituents and hold the Cox govt to account, not the past Brown govt. ‘Conflict of interest’ has to be construed very narrowly; a generalised concern about being on opposite sides of the political divide is simply not enough to take away from Mr Pettingill’s professional obligations.

              • Scott says:

                i dont see a legal conflict..

                but i can understand the potential for a mental one, how how some people would become confused by the two.

            • Truth be Told says:

              @ Scott while you attempt to sound intelligent you are wrong in this case.

              Mr. Pettingill is a Lawyer his political grounds has no bearing on his professional career. He was not against Dr. Brown “when he was Premier” personally he stood on the other side of the floor politically.

              This is a legal case and yes Mr. Pettingill is against government corruption as are all Government officials (a least they should be) but in law all persons brought before the court are innocent until proven guilty. For Mr. Pettingill to be going against what he believes in he would have to know for a fact that Dr. Brown is wrong and since none of us know we can not speak on weather Mr. Pettingill is going against what he believes.

              So just as Dr. Brown is not at a conflict of interest if he were to treat Mr. Pettingill because his job is not to make his political opponent sick Mr. Pettingill is not at a conflict of interest because his job is not to label without proof his political opponents guilty of crime.

              That is my point

      • Pomegranate says:

        Rich: Can a client be refused as a result of conflict of interest? Surely that case could be made here. It does seem incredible that Mr Pettingill’s party endorses the investigation, while at the same time he fights to quash it.

        • Rich says:

          Yes, you can refuse to work for someone as a result of a conflict of interest. But what’s envisaged by such a “conflict” generally is where you represent two clients whose interests conflict themselves; at least that tends to be Bar Council’s main concern. There’s also scope for for direct financial interests conflicting. But I’m having a difficult time seeing what conflict exists here. In fact, while the OBA welcomes an investigation, Dr Brown has also embraced it and has indicated his willingness to cooperate with the police.

    • tradition says:

      Work is work, not matter who provides food for the table. Mr Pettingill has a young family.

    • True Dat says:

      When will you all Figure out that no matter if your PLP UBP OBA Or XYZ if you are a Part of any world leadership or Government Everyone is the same they all work together behind closed doors
      ITS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY!!!!!! Sheesh!!! Figure IT OUT DAMN!!!

      “why Pettingill decided to take the case????”
      Come On People WAKE THE HELL UP!!!!!!

  4. Rockfish#2 says:

    Best the BPS conclude their investigation first. This could be ugly!

  5. Inquiry Minds says:

    I am curious 2, how come no one is asking the question who was the Minister and why the minister’s name was was disclosed, am I the only one? Why isn’t the investigative master minds pursuing that? Why just bury EB and not the messenger minister. If allegation are right they all need to be buried and if not EB needs to sue the pants off all of them.

    • sandgrownan says:

      Tough one for EB, because if he decides to sue, the whole sordid mess of his premiership will come out. Does he want that?

      We’d have to ask questions about..oh I don’t know…cruise ship terminals, land swaps, MRI scanners, yachts and ferries, tour boat operations. There’s lots of “grey” out there that needs to be discussed.

      Maybe he ego and vanity will be his undoing?

  6. Cancer says:

    His time will be sooner or later. He shud have had The Great Defender as his lawyer!

  7. Red says:

    This could finally be the undoing of Don Teflon….

  8. Samuel says:

    Brown wins again! First against BHC allegations, now against soon to be ex con Bolden.

  9. T'wasn't him. T'was Me says:

    @Rockfish#2: Good call.

  10. Hudson says:

    He said, she said… like the govt minister, even if named, would ever admit. “oh no sir, i never said that…” So who do you believe? My money is that the guy willing to spend THOUSANDS to “protect his name” has something to hide, otherwise, why didn’t he just state ” this too shall pass”?

  11. whistling Frog says:

    Why did the judge not ask who was the name of minister in question and is it admissible to bring up a third party with no name in a court of law?

    • sandgrownan says:

      It’s conspiracy against a strong black man….?

    • Pastor Syl says:

      I’m guessing the reason the Minister has not been named in the media has more to do with legalities than that the judge or the BPS have not already been informed of who s/he is. I’m sure that would have been the first question that was asked of Mr. Bolden.

  12. True Bermudian says:

    Oh look. The chickens have come home to roost.

    • sandgrownan says:

      If only…it’s whether or not this was a pattern of behaviour for EB. I suspect that’s what he’s afraid of being exposed.

  13. Fishy says:

    I agree with Hudson. In my experience the person who protests that defends himself by going on the attack is usually guilty of something and using the attack to distract.
    If he had just said “it’s not true he’s lying” and followed with a “I have nothing to hide” then I’d believe him

    But to try and gag the media on the statement and then turn around and attack says to me it must be true.

  14. Don't care what he says:

    One has to ask oneself, why Bolden would make something like this up? What purpose would it serve? I certainly don’t think it helped his defense.

  15. bermudian says:

    I guess if your Brown, you cross your fingers and toes and hope that this to shall pass. Hmm.

  16. PAS says:

    So, what will it be? Perjury? Corruption? Whine about it and then forget about it when something else comes up?

  17. joe says:

    Yes. The OBA should have remained silent -that part I don’t get. As for the investigation, come on guys, sooner or later it had to happen. There’s no conspiracy here. As for the results, let’s just wait it out.

  18. BombsAway says:

    Pirate Brown is to smart for this, he can dodge bullets… this too shall pass.

    • LOL (original) says:

      And mail him self some in the process………………..

      LOL

      • The Architect says:

        The Architect: Hello, Neo.

        Neo: Who are you?

        The Architect: I am the Architect. I created the Matrix. I’ve been waiting for you. You have many questions, and although the process has altered your consciousness, you remain irrevocably human. Ergo, some of my answers you will understand, and some of them you will not. Concordantly, while your first question may be the most pertinent, you may or may not realize it is also the most irrelevant.

  19. History repeats itself ... says:

    Anyone want to bet that this will be another BHC? A huge amount of material will be collected and the DPP will decide to stop the investigation before it’s finished [in the BHC case the police claimed that there were cartons of material that the DPP had not reviewed (so much for there not being enough evidence as he claimed)]

  20. Hmmmmm says:

    It is so amusing to see you all get taken in. Let’s just think about this for a minute. A man convicted of lying, an offence of dishonesty says something so irrelevant to his defence that the judge prevents the jury from hearing it; AND he doesn’t say that the person he accuses said it to him directly, but that someone else told him that’s what the person wants from him……..and on the strength of this, The FCO is informed, the Governor is falling over himself to assert his international responsibility and the Police, who take their time coming to answer my complaint of a break-in, have immediately started an investigation. Oh ok.The next shoe to drop will be that “the Minister” who said this is one of the dead ones…..wanna bet?

  21. Face the Nation says:

    DREB THE CHALLENGER ,CHALLENGES BECAUSES HE IS INDEED CHALLENGED . Most people of course will stand behind MR .Bolden regardless of his current situation . Godspeed MR.Bolden ,we wish you well .

  22. joonya says:

    Politics~ ‘Poli’ latin for ‘many’, ‘tics’ meaning ‘bloodsucking creatures’..

  23. The Messenger says:

    I personally, have never trusted him from the time I was at both election parties on Court Street (I did not vote PLP in the last election, I had already awaken to what was going on in politics) and especially when he said, “We had to deceive you”…….I was there and heard those words come from his mouth. It’s just a matter of time before “what’s done in the dark, comes out in the light”. Then I can finally tell people, “I told you so!”

  24. Jim Bean says:

    Mmmm. What makes me laugh is of all people Dr Brown now wants priviledge lifted in court – this from a man whose outbursts while in parliamnet (also protected) were ledgendary! oh -as for the minister lets go thru the list of telecoms ministers….

  25. US Observer says:

    Bravo!!!

  26. What is going on? says:

    Let the investigation begin….lol!!!!!!!! I think there are a few people a little nervous right now!!!!

  27. George Courtney says:

    both brown & bolden should do lie detector tests & present the results to the public than everybody will know who is lying