From Courtenay Barnett

Tue, Dec 22, 2015

Dear Mr. Hammond,

This correspondence has already been formally delivered to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. However, as an additional courtesy, it is being here emailed to you.

Please find herewith my letter to the Secretary of State which raises the following issues:-

1. The appointment of Judge Robert Schuster.

2. Constitutional compliance by His Excellency the Governor.

3. The reasons of the Judicial Services Commission as Constitutionally required.

4. Recusal of Judge Schuster from all my cases.

5. Neglect of the Governor in respect of His Excellency’s responsibilities for Her Majesty’s Prison.

6. On -going unlawful treatment of the mentally ill by way of the Executive Order stating that the mentally ill must be imprisoned.

I think that some serious attention needs to be given to the Turks and Caicos Islands and its process of judicial appointments.

Respectfully,

Courtenay Barnett

From Barnett and Associates

22nd December, 2015

The Secretary of State
Foreign and Commonwealth Office, King Charles Street,
London,SWlA 2AH
England

Tel: 020 7008 1500

Via email: [email protected]

And to:-

Mr. Philip Hammond
C/0 House of Commons, London, SWlA OAA England

Tel: 020 7219 4055

Fax: 020 7219 5851

Via email: [email protected]

And to:-

His Excellency Governor Peter Beckingham Governor of the Turks and Caicos Islands Governor’s Office
Waterloo, Grand Turk

Via email and delivered personally

Unclassified correspondence in triplicate pursuant to section 169 of the Colonial Regulations-for forwarding to the Secretary of State.

Dear Secretary of State and Your Excellency,

Re: His Excellency’s need to address the issue under the Constitution as to the appointment of Judge Robert Schuster and recusal

I refer to section 169 of the Colonial Regulations ( attached for ease of reference) and the right of the people of the Turks and Caicos Islands to address the Secretary of State on the appointment of Judge Robert Schuster.

In January 2015,several of the people of the Turks and Caicos Islands signed a petition against the appointment of Mr. Robert Shuster as a judge of the Supreme Court of the Turks and Caicos Islands (Petition attached).in addition to the few hundred signatures which were previously delivered. I now attach,in similar format to the previously delivered Petitions, an additional 55 signatures of concerned “Belongers” (citizens) who do not repose confidence in Judge Schuster, nor support his appointment to the Bench.

As of the 11th November 2015,a detailed reply was delivered to His Excellency, after much waiting for a response from His Excellency on the issues raised as to the appointment of Mr. Shuster as a Judge of the Supreme Court of the Turks and Caicos Islands( see attachment). To date His Excellency still has failed to address the essential constitutional points:-

“Lawful administrative action
19.-(1) All decisions and acts of the Government and of persons acting on its behalf must be lawful, rational, proportionate and procedurally fair.
(2) Every person whose interests have been adversely affected by such a decision or act has the right to request and be given written reasons for that decision or act.”

And by further reference to the Constitution:-

S. 87…
(3) The Judicial Service Commission, acting after consultation with the Chief Justice, shall-
(a) draw up and publish a code of conduct for the judiciary, which shall include power for the Chief Justice to exercise disciplinary control over the other judges of the Supreme Court and magistrates and power for the President of the Court of Appeal to exercise disciplinary control over the Justices of Appeal; and
(b) draw up and publish a procedure for dealing with complaints relating to the judiciary;

In light of the foregoing, and considering the history of this matter, It would be helpful to have the s.19 (2) reasons of the Judicial Services Commission and in addition the s. 87 (3) (b) established procedure to which the Petitioners can refer for dealing with their complaints relating to the judiciary, and more particularly, the appointment of Judge Robert Schuster.

Brief review of the history of the matter

1. In and about January, 2015 the public became aware that Mr. Robert Schuster was going to be appointed as a Judge of the Supreme Court of the Turks and Caicos Islands.
2. Both lawyers and members of the general public were sufficiently appalled at Mr. Schuster’s record on the Bench that they Petitioned.
3. On the 30th January, 2015 the first round of Petition(s) was delivered to His Excellency for
delivery to the Judicial Services Commission.
4. Nothing was heard further from His Excellency for some 3 months after which I received a correspondence from His Excellency.
5. Upon investigation it was discovered that Mr. Schuster had been appointed by instrument under His Excellency’s signature as of 27th February, 2015.uMr. Schuster” because he had not been Gazetted but was actually sitting from 151 March, 2015 and adjudicating on cases when he had not been lawfully appointed a judge.
6. As of the 5th November, 2015 ( attached} His Excellency gave his response to the long outstanding unaddressed issues.
7. On the 11 November, 2015 ( attached) for and on behalf of the Petitioners, I replied to His Excellency.
8. In the 5th November, 2015 correspondence the following was stated:-

“On the basis that the JSC having made a professional assessment, in the light of the contents of the Petitions, that Schuster J was suitable for appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court, I do not see it as appropriate for me to find that, without more, he should be removed from office. Additionally, I note that the Petitioners have not raised any issue with the manner in which Schuster J is carrying out his duties as a judge in the Islands.”

Questions surrounding Mr. Schuster’s suitability and ability for office with more as to unsuitability

1: How does it transpire that after the 30th January 2015 Petition against the appointment of Mr. Robert Shuster that the Judicial Services Commission does not immediately become aware of the unsuitability of an applicant who had been condemned by Amnesty International, the Tonga Law Society, the Attorney General of Tonga, the International Bar Association, then had been demoted to being a Magistrate, from the High Court Bench in Tonga, to Monserrat?

2: How does it transpire that there is no response to the Petitioners between the 301 January 2015 and His Excellency’s appointment of the 27th February, 2015?

3: How is it that the same questionable candidate for Judge finds himself sitting as a Supreme Court Judge ( without actually being a lawfully appointed Supreme Court Judge) for approximately 3 months and still the Governor cannot (upon advice) discern that something is actually seriously, very seriously wrong with this appointment?

4: How do we, the public at large repose trust and/or confidence in this very judicial system when Judge Shuster has:-

A Made seriously questionable decisions of which the public is aware, within only the 6 months that he was lawfully appointed?
B. He has ruled in absentia of Counselfor the Plaintiff, in Common Law Action 250 of 2014 I have for a client who had his leg amputated while he was an inmate at Her Majesty’s Prison. I received an email in October 2015 informing me that Judge Shuster had called the case up in August, 2015 and then dismissed the case in my absence. From October, 2015 I wrote to the Court requesting the process that was filed that led Judge Schulster be involved in and to discontinue an Action which was advancing with disclosures made by the Crown of 2 sets of medical records. The final set being awaited as of October, 2015 to then advance the matter by way of a filed Reply based on the complete medical records.
Below I shall cite the legal authorities why he could not even have addressed in any way any case of mine. Additionally, as I have consistently contended, Judge Shuster is not a person who enhances the judiciary of the Turks and Caicos Islands by reason of his history, his past and now his present conduct as here cited.
C. He is facing, and I accept that these are my appeals (from persons who have brought cases to me albeit I never had and ( hopefully) never will appear before Judge Shuster as the law is clear that I cannot be properly placed before him. In one appeal case I contend that he is incompetent. In another appeal I contend that he is unfair. The real point, however, is that there are far too many persons who independently have come to the same conclusion that Judge Shuster does not enhance the reputation and standing of the judicial status of the Turks and Caicos Islands in the eyes of the world, for clearly known and documented reasons.

But the problem of neglect and disinterest in who is appointed to the Supreme Court Bench runs much deeper into the overall justice system. Earlier this year Your Excellency will recall a number of incidents in Her Majesty’s Prison. Let us examine this in the context of disinterest, delays, avoidance and absolute administrative negligence. Let me not say so without good evidence and sound cause.

Recall in 2009 I had published a research document on the prison system of the Turks and Caicos Islands. It was entitled: “Prison and penal reform in the Turks and Caicos Islands: A position paper for improvement in the prison system”. See the responses from then Chief Justice Ward ( attached).The University of the West Indies took an interest in my research ( see attachments).From 2009 to 2011it took 2 years and then I was fully academically accredited to be a part of the designated University researchers in an intended on-going prison study. I wrote to His Excellency and showed the attached letter from the University of the West Indies (making an offer for research work to improve the overall prison system at absolutely no cost to the UK and/or TCI governments) but absolutely nothing was done – not so much as a reply from His Excellency (total disinterest). What then transpires? I was directly contacted by US and UK professional persons. One, the US person, was a statistician who wanted to participate in the study. He had done a study on HIV prisoners in the Chez Republic. The other had been a UK Prison Governor for some 18 years and also had experience of prisons in the Middle East. I told both persons that I was not able to make any decision on their applications but that the academic committee at the University of the West Indies had the final say. Ultimately the academic committee informed that it already had a statistician and so did not need the US applicant. The UK applicant was accepted as a person with special knowledge who would be able to make a significant contribution to the project. Now with nothing said by His Excellency over all these years,despite the value and worth of the project, what then has transpired just in 2015 while excluding immediately past incidents:-

A. His Excellency had designated, by way of Executive Order legal Notice 61of 2013 ( attached) Her Majesty’s Prison a “secure place” for the mentally ill persons, termed “lunatics” under the Lunatics Ordinance.
B. His Excellency totally ignores the fact that albeit section 11 of the Lunatics Ordinance (archaic as its terminology is) directs under the law that a “lunatic” must be placed in a mental institution overseas.
C. His Excellency reaps the consequences of total neglect as follows:-
A. A mentally challenged prison inmate is incarcerated for fully 5 years and 3 months without any criminal charge, but for the sole reason that he is mentally challenged and I applied and had him released and have sued.
B. A mentally challenged person is incarcerated and ends up eating his own faeces in his prison cell without any proper psychiatric assistance for his care.
C. A mentally challenged person, in the sense of being diagnosed chronic
schizophrenic, ends up dead in his prison cell by way of neglect and starvation.

Now, had the prison study from 2012 in any timely way been permitted by His Excellency and promptly acted upon, I remain convinced that these 2015 incidents at Her Majesty’s Prison occurred, because mechanisms would have been recommended and put in place in response. But, who cares?

Call it indifference coupled with bureaucratic inertia.

Recusal
The next point of law is whether or not Judge Shuster can hear any of my matters before the court. It is not me, but the law itself that states that he is obliged not to address even one of my matters in court, be it concerning me personally and/or any of my clients. Why so?

1. The legal authorities exist that the Judge has no further say in any of my matters. See: MacKay v. Mackay [2015] EWCH 2860 (Fam) saying that where there is a “solid reason” why I can’t and shall not appear before Judge Shuster. It seems to me that I am acting on behalf of Petitioners, who themselves are saying that he is not able and/or suitable for his appointment- how then can I appear before him? This should be obvious.
2. AWG GROUP LTD.AND ANOTHER V. MORRISON AND ANOTHER [2006] EWCA CIV 6 is authority to state that recusal is not a discretionary matter in a situation such as mine.
3. In the same AWG case on appeal, there is this instructive dictum at paragraph 8:-

“…By contrast, a real danger of bias might well be thought to arise if there were personal friendship or animosity between the judge and any member of the public involved in the case; or if the judge were closely acquainted with any member of the public involved in the case, particularly if the credibility of that individual could be significant in the decision of the case…or if, for any other reason, there were real ground for doubting the ability of the judge to ignore extraneous considerations, prejudices and predilections and bring an objective judgment to bear on the issues before him …in most cases, we think, the answer one way or the other, will be obvious. But if in any case there is real ground for doubt, that doubt should be resolved in favour of recusal ”

There exist a literal plethora of legal authorities reinforcing and affirming the principles cited above.

I am representing the Petitioners in an on-going Constitutional matter; I am openly, both locally and internationally, stating the inadequacies and proven record of Judge Shuster; I am repeating what has long since been known and established by highly reputable international organisations – and I am, under British jurisprudence to be compelled to appear before Judge Schuster?

Conclusion

Clearly, I am concerned about the state of the judiciary in the Turks and Caicos Islands and have historically good reason to be so concerned ( see attachment of UN affiliated organisation). We had, at one point in time, been advancing, having had such Chief Justices of the highest judicial caliber and integrity such as John Charles Fieldsend ( dissenting decision in the Constitutional case of Madzimbamuto v. Lardner-Burke- the then Rhodesia Court of Appeal decision on unilateral declaration of independence- who was invited post- independence to be and then became the first Chief Justice of independent Zimbabwe); or Gordon Ward ( President of the Court of Appeal in Fiji who faced a military coup and ruled against the unconstitutional seizure of power then had his house burnt down as a signal that he had to leave Fiji). It is in this context that the Attorney General of Tonga called Judge Shuster’s appointment corrupt, because with an appointment that had abolished the Judicial Services Commission then the road was clear for the government to make its own hand-picked judicial appointment. This is what Attorney General, John Cauchi, said about Judge Shuster’s participation in that process:-

JOHN CAUCHI:

This is a breach of constitutional principles; this is judges Fiji style. There are a lot of
leaders in this region who despite the fact that Fiji has been suspended from a group such as the Pacific attractive to be able to control members of the judiciary to dispose of them or to hire them as they see fit.” (see: http: Uwww.abc.net.au/pm/content/2010/s2886887.htm)

The Attorney General called Judge Schuster “corrupt”.

With final thoughts, let me say on behalf of the Petitioners, that they have requested of me that I inform that more signatures will be forthcoming, as they are aiming at 500 to make the case that Judge Shuster is unacceptable. Fifty five additional signatures here attached.

Courtenay Francis Raymond cc. Petitioners
Amnesty lnternational
International Bar Association
John D. Fitzpatrick (Supervising Attorney and Senior Clinical Instructor
Prison Legal Assistance Project
Wasserstein Caspersen Clinical Wing
6 Everett Street, Suite 5107
Harvard Law School Cambridge, MA 02138
617.495.3969) – All concerned interests

Attch .Colonial Regulations- s. 169
5th November, 2015 reply from Governor Peter Beckingham
11th November, 2015 response for and on behalf of the Petitioners
Correspondences from Chief Justice Gordon Ward of lih December, 2009 and 1st October, 2010
12th January, 2012 letter from the University of the West Indies ( no reply to date) Executive Order Legal Notice 61of 2013
Recusal cases of Mackay and AWG
UN affiliated Human Rights publication about the justice system in the Turks and Caicos Islands
Petition

END

From: [email protected]
To: [email protected] CC: [email protected] Subject: Appointment of Schuster J
Date: Thu,5 Nov 2015 14:47:49 +0000

Dear Mr. Barnett:

Thank you for your letters of 20th and 28th May 2015 and your confirmation that you have informed the signatories of the Petitions of my response to you on gth May 2015. Having now had the advice of the Attorney General on the legal issues you raised in your letters,I wish to set out my response to those issues as well as provide you with reasons for my decision to appoint Schuster J earlier this year and not to appoint a tribunal for his removal.

The importance of maintaining public confidence in the courts and in the judiciary cannot be questioned. The maintenance of the rule of law depends to a large extent on maintaining that public confidence. It is desirable to ensure that appointments to courts are made from those who have the skills and qualities necessary to discharge the difficult and important task of determining disputes between citizen and citizen and citizen and government. In that way, public confidence in the judiciary can be maintained.

1. Schuster J’s appointment

Section 77(3) of the Constitution empowers me,acting in accordance with the advice of the JudicialService Commission (JSC),to appoint a judge of the Supreme Court, by instrument under the public seal, from persons qualified for appointment by virtue of being-

(a) a barrister or solicitor of the United Kingdom,of any other part of the Commonwealth,or of
Ireland;

(b) a member of the Faculty of Advocates or a Writer to the Signet of Scotland;or

(c) an attorney of the Supreme Court admitted under the Legal Profession Ordinance(a) or under any law for the time being in force in the Islands making like provision, and of at least ten years’ standing as such.

The Constitution further requires that judicial officers are independent of both Parliament and the Executive Government. Section 83(1) provides that judges and magistrates appointed to preside or sit in any court of the Turks and Caicos Islands shall exercise their judicial functions independently from the legislative and executive branches of government. Section 83(2) requires,inter alia,the Legislature and the Cabinet to uphold the rule of law and judicial independence.

An independent judiciary is a bulwark protecting citizens from an over-reaching government. The requirement for the Governor to appoint a judicial officer in accordance with the advice of an independent JSC assists in the avoidance of unfair criticism based on accusations of cronyism or improper political patronage. I would therefore not lightly consider departing from the
advice of the JSC.

Obviously,the qualities of a judicial officer are not confined to legal ability. He or she must have personal qualities to deal patiently and courteously with the parties to litigation and the witnesses. The goal is the appointment of a skilled,impartial and courteous arbiter. The
primary consideration should be merit. Candidates for judicial office must, therefore,have professional qualities and personal qualities appropriate to the kind of judicial work he or she will have to discharge. The JSC fulfils the role of providing a professional assessment of judicial candidates,being made up of a guaranteed majority of judges or former judges.

By section 87(8) the JSC and its members “shall not be subject to the direction or control of any other person or authority”. As highlighted in the recent judgment of the Privy Council in Michael Misick and ors v The Queen (Turks and Caicos Islands) [2015] UKPC 31Privy Council Appeal No 0042 of 2015, after citing the above provisions of the Constitution,”it follows that appointments to the Supreme Court are made in effect by the independent JSC,save in the exceptional case of instructions from london (not the Islands government) at the level of Secretary of State.”

In the circumstances, I considered that the only appropriate course of action for me was to
refer the allegations and assertions set out in the Petitions to the JSC for consideration and seek their advice. Having received confirmation that they had noted the contents of the Petition and obviously did not consider it necessary to alter their advice to me,I relied on their professional advice in making the appointment of Schuster J.

2. Establishment of a tribunalto remove Schuster J

You have further asked me to consider the appointment of a Tribunal under the Constitution to consider whether Schuster J should be removed from his office as a Judge of the Supreme Court of the Turks and Caicos Islands on the ground of inability to perform that office or of misbehaviour.

Section 85 of the 2011Constitution provides for the removal of a judge in the following terms-

“(5) A judge or a magistrate may be removed from office only for inability to discharge the functions of his or her office (whether arising from infirmity of body or mind or any other cause)

or for misbehaviour, and shall not be so removed except in accordance with subsection (6).
(6) A judge or a magistrate shall be removed from office by the Governor by instrument under the public seal if the question of the removal of that judge or magistrate from office has, at the request of the Governor made in pursuance of subsection (7), been referred by Her Majesty to the Judicial Committee of Her Majesty’s Privy Council under section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act 1833(a) or any other enactment enabling Her Majesty in that behalf, and the Judicial Committee has advised Her Majesty that the judge or magistrate ought to be removed from office for inability as aforesaid or for misbehaviour.”

The basis of that further request was stated in the Petitions and in your letters as being the very same allegations and assertions cited as the basis for the request not to make the appointment in the first place.

On the basis that the JSC having made a professional assessment, in the light of the contents of the Petitions, that Schuster J was suitable for appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court, I do not see it as appropriate for me to find that, without more, he should be removed from office. Additionally, I note that the Petitioners have not raised any issue with the manner in which Schuster J is carrying out his duties as a judge in the Islands.

3. The publication of Schuster J’s instrument of appointment prior to him performing the functions of a judge of the Supreme Court.

In your letter on 28th May, you raised the issue of a perceived procedural irregularity regarding the publication of Schuster J’s instrument of appointment. Thank you for drawing this to my attention.

I have raised this with the Hon. Attorney General and I have been informed that the Printing Office published notice of Justice Shuster’s appointment on Friday May 29,2015 as Government Notice number 344 (vol 166,no.23} after that Office discovered that they had inadvertently overlooked the Attorney General’s Chambers’ end of February request to them to publish the notice of appointment.

The Attorney General has advised me that the practice of publishing notices of judicial appointments and in fact, all Constitutional and statutory appointments is not in every case a legal requirement and in the case of a judge,it is not a legal requirement and is merely good practice as a means of providing public notice of appointments.

Justice Shuster’s appointment took effect from March 1,2015 for three years having been made by the me on 27th February 2015. The judicial oath and the oath of allegiance were sworn before me on 27th February 2015.

In your letter, you referred to the definition of “subsidiary legislation” under section 3 of the Interpretation Ordinance as including an “instrument made under any Ordinance or other lawful authority and having legislative effect.” You further cite, section 26(1) which provides that “all subsidiary legislation made under any Ordinance or other lawful authority and having
legislative effect shall be published in the Gazette and unless it be otherwise provided shall take effect and come into operation as law on the date of such publication.”

An excerpt from the Attorney General’s advice, on which I rely,is set out below-

“The Interpretation Ordinance establishes a two part test in the determination of what the term ‘subsidiary legislation’ means in the context of sections 3 and 26. The Constitution is not an Ordinance and as such, the reference to an instrument “being made under any Ordinance” does not apply in the circumstances of this matter. However, it accepted that the Governor was acting on the basis of “lawful authority” when appointing Schuster J. The real question is whether an instrument of appointment, in this context, has legislative effect. If an instrument, despite being an instrument made under lawful authority, does not have “legislative effect”, then the requirement for publication does not apply.

It may be reasonably assumed that in enacting the definition of “subsidiary legislation” in the Interpretation Ordinance, the TCI legislature did not intend instruments that had an administrative or judicial effect to be subsidiary legislation.

In the case of Lim Chin Aik v The Queen [1963] AC 161, the Privy Council in discussing a contention that an order of a Minister against a person was the exercise of delegated legislation with certain results maintained that there was a difference between the exercise of a legislative function of the Minister as distinct from his executive or administrative functions.

In the American case of J.W. Hampton Jr & Co v United States (1928) 276 US 407, in referring to the distinction between a legislative, executive and judicial power, it was stated that “the true distinction, therefore, is between the delegation of power to make the law, which necessarily involves a discretion as to what is shall be, and conferring an authority or discretion as to its execution, to be exercised under and in pursuance of the law.”

The Australian case of Commonwealth v Gruneit (1943) 67 CLR 58,involved the determination by the Minister of the class of persons who should perform a specified service, that in the opinion of the Minister they were capable of performing. The Chief Justice pointed out, that the general distinction between legislation and the execution of legislation is that legislation determines the content of a law as a rule of conduct or a declaration as a power, right or duty, whereas executive authority applies the law in particular cases.

In the Minister of Industry and Commerce v Tooheys Ltd [1981] FLR 325,the Australian courts considered the question of whether a refusal of the Minister to make a determination under the Customs Act relating to the admission to Australia of certain goods was “a decision of an administrative character” within the meaning of the relevant Act. The Full Federal Court of

Appeal,upholding the decision of the lower court found that a determination under the relevant section of the Customs Act was not a legislative act which the Commonwealth Parliament could have done itself but chose to delegate to the Minister. It also rules that a determination under that section did not have the effect of changing the relevant law. The Full Court declared that the distinction between legislative and administrative acts is essentially between-

1. The creation or formulation of new rules of law having general application, and

2. The application of those rules to particular cases.

Applying the above case law, an instrument appointing a judge of the Supreme Court is clearly not subsidiary legislation because it neither determines the law or alters its content; further it is clearly not of general application but is rather an application of the law in a particular case.

Therefore, there is no error in the appointment of Schuster J on the basis outlined in Mr Barnett’s letter.”

I hope that you find this reply helpful and comprehensive. Peter Beckingham
Governor, Turks and Caicos Islands
END

CHIEF JUSTICE”S CHAMBERS
Supreme Com1
Grand Turk
Turks and Caicos Islands
British West Indies

17 December 2009

Courtenay Barnett Esq
P 0 Box45
Grand Turk
Turks and Caicos Islands

Dear Mr Barnett,

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to read your paper on “Improvements in the Prison System” under the overall topic of Prison and Penal Reform in the Turks and Caicos Islands.

You identify and develop an interesting and stimulating approach to a perennial problem which should not, and must not, be allowed to remain just because it has been with us and much of the rest of the world for so long.

I understand that it has led to your involvement, under the auspices of the University of the West Indies, in a wider study ofthe people within the prison system in TCI and Jamaica at the various levels of policy makers, operational staff and the prisoners themselves. As you know this is a field which has been the subject of many studies in the past but I feel you may be approaching it from a different and refreshingly new direction.

I wish you luck in this work. As with so many projects, I realise you will need financial assistance and I hope you are successful in finding a suitable source of funds. If you feel it would assist in that search, I would be happy for you to use this letter as an indication of my support.

I wish you well in this endeavour. I have no doubt it will cast fresh light on the problem to the ultimate benefit of the prisoners and, in consequence, of society as a whole.

Gordon Ward
Chief Justice

CHIEF JUSTICE’S CHAMBERS Supreme Court
Grand Turk
Turks and Caicos Islands
British West Indies

1 October 2010

C Barnett Esq
POBox 45
Grand Turk

Dear Mr Barnett

Re: Prison research project

Thank you for your letter advising me of the stage this project has reached. I am happy to hear that it is progressing so well. It is kind of you to suggest my letter of commendation helped but I have no doubt the real driving force is your determination to ensure such an important topic is properly researched and recognised.

I hope adequate funding comes through and that the whole project is successfully completed. I look forward eventually to reading the final paper.

With best wishes

Gordon Ward
Chief Justice

END

THE UNIVERSITY OF THE WEST INDIES — – – -­
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY HEALTH & PSYCHIATRY
MONA CAMPUS, KI NGSTON 7, JAMAICA

January 12, 2012

To Whom It May Concern,

Project in the Turks and Caicos Islands. The University of the West Indies, Mona became aware of the project and thought it had great merit, potential and practical implications for Jamaica and theTurks and Caicos Islands.

The formal study has been approved by the Academic Committee of the University of the West Indies and funding has been granted. The nature of the study is a mixed quantitative and qualitative study. In Jamaica, the research group comprised of:
• Dr Clayton Sewell (Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist)
• Courtenay Barnett (Attorney-at-Law)
• Sharon White
• Dacia Leslie (Criminology Researcher)
• Dr. Judy Robertson (Psychologist)

The Ministry of National Security, Jamaica will be engaging the team to complete a comprehensive study within Jamaica.

Mr. Barnett for his part is being asked to obtain all necessary approvals from the conduct the study. The University of the West Indies, Mona will not be seeking any funding from the Government of the Turks and Caicos Islands, however our research findings will be made fully available to the authorities of the Turks and Caicos Islands. Additionally, any constructive input from the judiciary as well as the prison administration would be welcomed. One of our main objectives is to find cost effective ways and make recommendations for practical methods of reducing recidivism.

We trust that Mr. Barnett might be assisted and that the authorities might deem it worthy that the necessary cooperation is extended.

Yours truly,

Dr. Clayton Sewell
Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist
University of the West Indies
Mona