Resident Magistrates' (NOA) address of touts may be wrong tactic

Webmasters Make $$$

In recent times, the Resident Magistrates at the Sutton Street Court location have been ordering that members of the public use the bailiff’s office for process service.

Perhaps in response to an article, published in the Jamaica Gleaner March 29th, 2015, titled “Bailiffs being put out of office by touts in the street ” these certain Resident Magistrates are attempting to maintain control by these means.
The article written by Barbara Gayle was solely based on, and reflected mostly accusations levied by Mr Augustus Sheriah, who has served as a bailiff since 1982. [Full article here]
In his ranting, Mr Sheriah claimed that the business of his office was being closed by the actions of touts who ‘flock the court daily,.. and by becoming the vendor bailiff clients pose more than a threat to his bailiff business.
Notwithstanding that, the article clearly was not written with a balance of the issues at hand and with appropriate reference to proper research and follow up investigations.
Some of the points raised were sore, and demands immediate responses which are better recorded elsewhere.
For now, one main issue and point of reference is the claim that although the bailiff office charges $1,000 the members of the public are ‘touted’ into paying $6,000 for the same service by these non-bailiffs.

TWO WRONGS NEVER MAKE ONE RIGHT

Therefore it seems that specific Resident Magistrates have sided with the bailiff by enforcing a new rule that for cases where the Defendant has not shown up, the Plaintiff’s are now required to have a ‘Notice of adjournment (NOA)’ drafted by the Court and served by the Bailiff – but for a fee. The fee being $1400 upwards. This is not the only document that the public is literally being forced to have the Bailiff office served.

In their (Resident Magistrates) Defence, The fee paid for the Bailiff’s office to serve such documents as Notice of Adjournment should be returned or refunded by the Defendant, eventually. The note of refunds and costs are again an entirely different story to be told, especially in light of the infringement of the public’s constitutional rights.

Albeit, while the Sutton Street Court staff squabble and entangle in the Bailiff’s office battle for innocent clients, the main issues arising are still unaddressed inflicting more wounds if not adding further injury to the already bruised victims – the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff are the ones who are now made to suffer either way, as in most cases, the common man who has used his last dollar, sometimes borrowed is the one who ends up feeling ‘taxed’ again.

It is first of all not true that the Bailiff office at the Sutton Street court run by Augustus Sheriah and interestingly not falling under the portfolio of the Ministry of Justice charges $1,000. Some attorneys are already finding such false report uncomfortable. Needless to say, significant number of the ‘common man’ who have used the services of these ‘touts’ have come out in support of their support, and it is anybody’s wonder why to now a follow up article to the first published March 29th, 2015 has not been forthcoming.

Complaints against Bailiffs

According to feedback, to journalists on this site, by at least fifty persons so far, the touts are with reason to remain in business, well at least in serving documents like summons because there are multiple complaints that the Bailiffs which charge relatively cheaper are not efficient. Some have complained that the Bailiff’s office staff are arrogant and illmannered, and others are frustrated by the punishment they claim is meted out by the Court front staff when they make attempts to pay for Bailiff services there.
These supporters having reached the point of frustration strongly suggest that the refund of monies paid to the Bailiff office, versus the fact that the monies paid to ‘touts’ are nonrefundable are neither here nor there as selected ‘touts’ have just been more effective and efficient.
That too will be left for another forum. Fast forward to today’s new rule by the Resident magistrates at Sutton Street and two new offences, though not criminal have been committed.

Standstill system

The common man is now forced to pay sums he didnt bargain for, and further is now forced to suffer the abuse of a standstill system which sees them spending at least four hours before they are served with insults by discourteous staff upon whom they must now rely. Added to that they consider the history of some of the Bailiff in not being able to track down the Defendants as efficiently as the ‘touts’ it is anybody’s wonder on the added time it will now take for justice to finally reach them.

So more cries will now go up, and yes, with added reason the touts will find another way to circumvent the system which is already flawed simply because the powers that be have added more burden on the common man in search of justice.
Dont ask why there is corruption and the thriving of a back door system, when even the powers that rule the Court seem incompetent to clean up the rot at the roots which threaten the flourishing of the tree, however unhealthy.

A proper way to handle the actions of the ‘touts’ is promised and so anxiously awaited. Hopefully the powers that be will be mindful that their actions should be seen as just, without imposing further harm on the common man seeking justice.
The touts in the meantime in consideration of this as their only option at earning a decent living need to get their act together and not put the reputation of the Legal system in disrepute by a lack of integrity at any time.
For some of their negative actions so far has done more to force the strict hands of the Court to come down on them instead of earning the respect demanded by the system.
Though hand should join in hand, the threats posed are not permanent if all recognise the value of serving humanity with integrity instead of warring against their fellow Jamaican in the battle to overcome economic hardship.
For one, they should by now realise that hanging out on the Court compound to compete with the Court staffers, for persons who seek free assistance from the Court staffers is untoward. BUT THEN… more next time!

Author Profile

Anthea

... qualified & experienced in journalism, creative writing, editing, the arts, art critique, paralegal, photography, teaching, research, event planning, motivational speaking, workshops for children and adults, visual arts etc. Click here for contact form. ...or email me here