Opinion: A Reply To MP Sousa On Film Crew

April 13, 2014

[Opinion column written by Jonathan Starling] I doubt I’m the only one having trouble following the rationale put forward by, first Minister Fahy and now the OBA backbencher, MP Sousa.

Essentially they seem to be arguing that denying the film crew permission to film on island was the right thing to do in order to defend Bermuda’s ‘reputational risk’. That is, by letting them film on island Bermuda would be portrayed in a negative light, and that would damage our reputation, and so we won’t let them.

This whole argument makes absolutely no sense however, as banning the film crew from filming in Bermuda does not stop them filming the documentary and so threatening our ‘reputational risk’.

Actually, it does the complete opposite and damages our reputation more.

We’ve already seen the story picked up by the Associated Press and subsequently by news media throughout the world, primarily in Canada, but also in the Caribbean and as far afield as New Zealand. These news media are not just reporting how Bermuda failed to handle the tragedy of Rebecca Middleton’s brutal rape and murder in the first place, but they’re also reporting about how our government has taken a heavy-handed and nonsensical decision to bar the film crew.

The given explanation for barring the film crew makes no sense – we would be at risk of our reputation being threatened regardless. The OBA’s decision just made us look even worse.

Had we instead rolled out the proverbial red carpet for the film crew and asked to have the opportunity to explain the reforms we’ve made, the reforms we still need to make (and what the obstacles are), and how safe the island is for visitors, while our reputations may still take a hit (because, quite frankly, we did mess up on this and justice has yet to be seen), at least we could have minimised the ‘reputational risk’.

We might even have been able to enhance our reputation by demonstrating our openness and commitment to dealing with the legacy of this incident.

To defend this decision by the Minister is to defend the indefensible – unfortunately something all too common when it comes to political parties and the collectivist mentality it engenders, be it PLP, UBP, BDA or now OBA.

MP Sousa asks:

  • “Why should we be forced to atone for that over and over again?”
  • “Why should we enable the further notoriety of this case in Canada and elsewhere?”

The answer to the first question is that we will be faced with this issue again and again until justice is done and we’ve ensured that something like this doesn’t happen again.

The second question seems better directed to his own Minister whose actions have indeed enabled ‘the further notoriety of this case in Canada and elsewhere’.

By enabling the film crew we would have, in a small way, helped demonstrate our willingness to see justice in this case. Instead we’ve shot ourselves in the foot and made this whole tragedy even worse.

Minister Fahy, despite our ideological differences, is actually one of the OBA’s more competent Ministers. On this issue however he has made an extremely poor decision which is completely counter-productive.

At best he was fixated on the short-term perspective, as well as a ‘this too shall pass conviction’.

At worst he was given horrible advice or was even influenced by others who have their own connections to the tragedy.

I don’t think it’s too late to reverse this decision and do everything we can to facilitate the film crew – it may be a desperate damage control exercise, but that would seem to be the best course of action now.

Much more importantly however we need to amend our legislation to make the exceptions to the double jeopardy law from the 2010 Court of Appeal Amendment Act retrospective – and so allow a retrial of the accused from the Middleton case, based on the new evidence that we have today.

We also need to identify what other lessons we can learn from the mishandling of the original prosecution.

Beyond that, there are a number of additional cases which have remained unsolved, dating back decades, which should be re-opened – or the handling of the original investigations themselves subject to a critical review to determine if more should have been, or could still be, done to bring closure and justice to the victims or their families.

- Jonathan Starling

Read More About

Category: All, News, Politics

Comments (29)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Quinton Stovell says:

    Short and pointy article,well written. Sooo we change the law retroactively to void a Corporation of Hamilton lease/contract, but for the Middleton unsolved capital murder????? Hmmmm

    • Peace on Earth says:

      I Soooooooooo agreee. FIX THIS SO WE DO NOT MAKE THE SAME MISTAKES

    • Stovell I have to agree with you, while many things change, somethings remain the same. sad state of affairs

    • Sandy Bottom says:

      So you disagree with the law the PLP passed in 2010. Did you mention this opinion then?

      And what does the making of a tv show have to do with changing the law, exactly?

  2. Tank Rain says:

    For once I agree with you…

  3. Fools of Fahy says:

    Fahy is a fool, he should step down and then a new Minister can come in and grant the permits. Now one man has put the whole islands reputation at risk.

    • lucky 7 says:

      Fahy didn’t put the Island’s reputation at risk you idiot, Justice Smith and the other guy did!!!

      • Road Runner says:

        Kirk Mundy

      • The 3 Musketeers says:

        Hmmmmm first it was Justice then Mundy.

        Mr. Fahy drove the nails in the coffin for the Film Crew. As far as Bermuda is concern all three are idiots.

  4. verbal kint says:

    Well said, Mr. Starling. Much is being made of the possible reputational damage of allowing the crew to come, or from the backlash of not allowing the crew to come. Over and above that, this decision just seems wrong for a jurisdiction that should be operating in the same open manner as other progressive jurisdictions. It seems wrong because it is wrong.

  5. Terry says:

    I have nothing personal against Mr. Starling but more often I disagree with his Communist/Socialist views.

    I must say that his true inner feelings surfaced here in this short and well stated opinion.

    Just being honest with myself.

    Shalom.

  6. Prospect Yard says:

    “Beyond that, there are a number of additional cases which have remained unsolved, dating back decades, which should be re-opened – or the handling of the original investigations themselves subject to a critical review to determine if more should have been, or could still be, done to bring closure and justice to the victims or their families.”

    This has and is being done!

    There have been and continue to be reviews by UK Detectives as well as retired senior Bermuda Detectives.

    A little research would have found the facts.

    • Terry says:

      Well they are not producing.

      One case in particular comes to mind of a brutal murder in Smiths parish.

      I even emailed and offered info and was flipped off.

      With a name like Prospect Yard you must be in the know or a reviewer .
      Shalom.

  7. John E. Thorne says:

    Well said! I agree with you 100%.

  8. Navin Johnson says:

    Totally agree Mr Starling

  9. Coffee says:

    Get use to the OBA circling the wagons over this unpleasant and unfortunate murder . The UBP did it originally when the case was botched and all Fayhe did was to bridge the behavior to the new/old party .

  10. Sandy Bottom says:

    The making of a tv show has nothing to do with changing the double jeopardy laws.

  11. Portia says:

    “By enabling the film crew we would have, in a small way, helped demonstrate our willingness to see justice in this case. Instead we’ve shot ourselves in the foot and made this whole tragedy even worse.”

    Mr Starling, we allowed a film crew in several years ago – for the show City Confidential. Why is it that permitting THAT film did not demonstrate our willingness to “see justice in this case?” If it didn’t, then why are we to believe that THIS situation is different? What makes THIS film so special, as, from what I understand, it is basically the same as what was filmed before.

    Also, how does a film provide justice to this girl’s family? It doesn’t. It provides revenue to the film makers. And pardon me for being blunt, but if you believe that having that show filmed here would have made Bermuda look better than denying them, then you are mistaken. They would have raked the Island over the coals either way.

    And exactly what “new evidence” has come to light in the Middleton case that would warrant a re-trial? NOTHING, to my knowledge. Retroactive laws go against the principle of the common law system, which is why Parliaments here and overseas have rarely permitted retroactive laws except in exceptional cases. This is not to restrict justice, but to protect citizens from prosecution by the Crown for a crime that was not a crime at the time it was committed.

    • Eye of Horus says:

      “And exactly what “new evidence” has come to light in the Middleton case that would warrant a re-trial? NOTHING, to my knowledge. Retroactive laws go against the principle of the common law system, which is why Parliaments here and overseas have rarely permitted retroactive laws except in exceptional cases. This is not to restrict justice, but to protect citizens from prosecution by the Crown for a crime that was not a crime at the time it was committed.”

      There doesn’t have to be new evidence. There’s evidence that was found years ago but never disclosed in the trial because it was rushed through before the evidence could be brought forth. Some of this evidence was brought up in a recent shooting/murder trial by the prosecution to shut mundy up when he was put on the stand by a familiar defense lawyer to help his new client out.

      • Portia says:

        Whether or not there was evidence that was not disclosed at the original trial – that is not the point of double jeopardy laws. The object is not to give the DPP a “second stab” at making a case because they messed up the first time or just had a bad day; the point is to allow a re-trial when there is evidence that is new or COULD NOT reasonably be brought to court at the time of the trial. If you are correct and there was evidence that the DPP decided not to wait for – that is not Smith and Mundy’s fault, but the DPP’s.

        Whatever the prosecution did or didn’t do with the evidence – that was the stance they took. The role of an Appeals court is to examine a case based on points of LAW, not facts. It is the jury’s job to evaluate and determine the validity of facts and evidence. And the prosecution obviously felt that the evidence they had was sufficient to go to court with.

        And I never said that murder and rape are not crimes – I was referring to retroactive laws in general and why, in most cases, the legal system does not allow them, because it would be egregious to convict Joe Blow for something he did on, say March 1, when the law that made that act illegal was only passed on April 1.

    • Eye of Horus says:

      “This is not to restrict justice, but to protect citizens from prosecution by the Crown for a crime that was not a crime at the time it was committed.”

      When has murder & rape ever not been a crime?

  12. Concerned says:

    I take a different view to all of you and please read this to the end. While I agree that the film crew should had been given a permit (although I feel they could had worked without letting everyone know). All this energy and time put behind these comments, I feel should be put behind the solving of the many murders that have occurred here on this island since! Not really knock you all for your views on this subject, but where are you all when a local murder occurs?

  13. Gotham says:

    I know what I would do if it was my daughter.

  14. aceboy says:

    I agree with Starling too, but I wish his opinions weren’t limited to bashing the OBA exclusively. He has let so much PLP BS slide.

  15. nuffin but the truth says:

    FAHY needs to reverse his decision and step down…RESIGN!

    furthermore,NO one person should have decided this situation.

    • Eye of Horus says:

      One person has been deciding every situation already. Nothing new but the party & the year.

  16. hold on says:

    Very well put Jonathan. We need to redeem ourselves by finding a way to bring Rebecca’s killers to justice. I find it hard to understand why we are even debating this idea. The suggestion that we are doing this only because it is a foreigner beggars belief. If this was a Bermudian girl killed this way something would have been done by now.

  17. Leon says:

    @ Portia. I agree!! Thx for reminding us about City Confidential. I forgot about that. Also, I still do not see how documentaries bring justice. Unfortunately, we will all suffer because of the guys and the way the case was ridiculously handled. We could explain to the film producers all we want. They will report what is interesting and sensational. Do they care? No. Does Bermuda? Always will.