Last Tuesday, June 25, while the Prime Minister was still on his feet during the debate on the bill to amend the Family Law Act, I received the first of many calls from court marshals who were incensed by his remarks in relation to them. Everyone who called me was quite upset and was able to cite several instances where marshals go above and beyond the call of duty to facilitate the work of the courts, without compensation or recognition.
I did not hear the speech, so I had to rely on the Nation for a summary of what transpired. If the report is a fair one, and I have no reason to believe otherwise, I am disappointed that the Prime Minister has chosen this forum to vent on defenceless public officers. As the Prime Minister and minister responsible for the Public Service, Mr Freundel Stuart can fix these problems with the stroke of a pen.
Before dealing with the part of his speech that they found offensive, I would like to remind the Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues that there is a longstanding convention, in Westminster-styled democracies, which suggest that ministers of the Crown should not publicly criticize civil servants. Maybe, Cabinet should learn from the Barbados Secondary Teachers’ Union while dealing with the Alexandra School affair. That instituted industrial action when a principal made unflattering remarks about a teacher at a speech day. That is not a threat: it is just a reminder of what can happen when people’s feelings are hurt.
Notwithstanding the convention, members of Cabinet continue to use public forums to disparage public officers. In so doing, they set up civil servants for abuse from members of the public, thereby making it extremely difficult for them to carry out their duties.
From the tone of the excerpts of the speech, the Prime Minister seems to be placing blame solely on the marshals when documents are not served on delinquent fathers. The failure of marshals to serve documents in these circumstances becomes a very emotive issue, especially when the imagery of children suffering is invoked. Without knowing the other side, and there is another side, the average person would have no sympathy for marshals if Government were to take steps to move them out of the picture, as the Prime Minister threatened.
Right-thinking people must therefore ask themselves: why hasn’t a single marshal been disciplined for “failure to perform the duties assigned to the office” or “negligence in the performance of duty” as provided by paragraph 2 of the Code Of Discipline In The Public Service. Both offences are considered to be misconduct of a serious nature, and the code provides that any person, who is found guilty of such misconduct, is liable to be dismissed from the service. It would also be fair to ask: why have no marshals been sent on administrative leave pending their retirement, in the public interest?
If the Prime Minister’s concerns about the performance of marshals are valid, there would be a more fundamental problem at the Court Process Office. To my mind, he would also be suggesting that these very junior officers are not being supervised. But that would be a simplistic view of the multifaceted problems at that office. Sadly, as public officers, marshals are forbidden from publicly putting their side, especially if it contradicts the Prime Minister’s much publicized but erroneous position. Fortunately for them, I am under no such restrictions.
A check with the Public Service (General) Order 2008 revealed that there should be 69 marshals employed at the Court Process Office: one chief; one deputy chief; three senior marshals; nine Marshal Is; and 55 Marshal IIs. The persons employed in the 55 posts are the ones who actually serve court documents. The Prime Minister seems not to be aware that there were 25 vacancies going back before his party took power in January 2008. Since then, one has been retired medically unfit last year, and another reached retirement age in January. To be fair to Government, I have to report that they recruited five persons in February this year: there are still 22 persons short.
I cannot leave you with the impression that marshals only serve court documents. Approximately 13 of these same officers are required to provide security in the High Court and Court of Appeal on a daily basis. In addition, others are assigned to the Magistrates’ Courts. On any given day, there are only about ten marshals available to serve documents. It has reached the stage where no marshals are assigned to some districts. Government is in essence asking the Court Process Office to make bricks without straw or in today’s parlance, blocks without cement.
These much vilified public servants are really unsung heroes who, without adequate manpower and little resources, have kept the courts functioning. When have we ever heard any reports that the courts ground to a halt on any day because the marshals did not summon anybody for that day? Despite the shortage of staff, the conscientious officers usually have the courts fully supplied with accused persons and witnesses. The country owes them a debt of gratitude.
Rather than criticize them from the floor of the House, the Prime Minister should apologize to them for the offence that he caused and then supply the Court Process Office with the adequate manpower to do the job.
• Caswell Franklyn is a trade unionist and social commentator. Email caswellf@hotmail.com