Court Visit2

8/11/2019 Court Visit2

1/4

UNIVERSITY OF THE SOUTHERN CARIBBEAN

PO BOX 175, PORT OF SPAIN

Court Visit

Assignment

Presented in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the CourseMGMT341: Business Law

Lecturer: Mr. Felix Pearson

ByKeisha Josann Thurab

Student No. 2010110123

October 1st, 2013

Approval


2/4

One must admit, that up to this point no attention was ever given to any systems of law let alone

Trinidad and Tobagos despite having friends and family employed within the legal system, and

memories of being told You should become a layer is as far as the topic extended. The

differences and similarities observed at the Tunapuna Misgtrate Court and the Hall of Justice

High court solidify my view on certain social and organisational issues such asbruearoacy,

leafier or desensitisation of personnel and permissible conducts

A pleasant surprise was the level of security and use of technology at both courts such as

scanners hand held and for body and personal belongings, the security and information

desk personnel were pleasant, they informed persons as to what is expected for attire, electronic

devises and general behaviour. The ambiance was clean and comfortable there was an aesthetic

apple that stood outside other government architecture. Both courts had established processes

some geared toward delivering the outcome of judgement, while others were clearly strait out of

a colonial west minister scheme, seen in the standing, bowing of those present, as well as the

addressing of the Magistrate and Judge as Your Worship and Your Lord, a somewhat

submissive and frustrated tone emanated from those seeking resolution.

similar seating was used inside the courtroom for the public as well. In the Magistrate Court

there was no air-conditioning, but fans were placed at strategic locations for the comfort of the

panel. I had the opportunity to sit in on a public criminal matter that was being discussed where

the defendant or suspect, (who stood in a cage at the middle of the room), was charged for 3

cases of robbery, 1 case of larceny and 1 case of marijuana possession. The magistrate in this

court, Mr. Wellington, who was dressed in a white shirt, a tie and a black trousers called the

defendant's name who was already placed in the holding area. He then called for the facts to be


3/4

read and an individual from the counsel stood and read one case at a time. While this counsel

representative was reading, he had to pause on numerous occasions for a female registry, who

was in the front of the room, to record a written account of the information that he was verbally

expressing. This process seemed to be a very tedious and ancient way of getting the job done as

better techniques of recording could have been utilized in the court. After each case was read,

the Magistrate asked the defendant if he actually performed the acts expressed in the reading and

the defendant stated that he was guilty. The magistrate then read the charges and the time period

that the accused and now charged had to serve. The Magistrate at this time was ready to leave the

courtroom, so everyone was required to stand by the same counsel representative and the

Magistrate made his exit.

When I observed the outside of the Supreme Court, I saw a major difference in the

condition of the building versus the condition of the Magistrate's Court, as it was well kept and

clean. On entry, in the High Court there were scanners set up and all security checks were done

electronically. There was a drastic difference in the workings of The Supreme or High Court. It

firstly was a more comfortable and professional environment to be in as there were not any

suspicious looking characters dressed in any manner as there was in that of the Magistrates'

Court. Everything seemed to be well organised as everyone was well informed about the

hearings which was backed up by a print out used to determine when cases began and ended. I

was easily checked, cleared and directed by extremely courteous security to the information desk

where I was met with the same level of tact. The employees at the information area were

exceedingly helpful as they showed me the listing and advised me of the best room to enter. I

was told to view a civil matter instead as there were not going to be any criminal cases on that

day. The case that I sat in on was one between Lorraine Beharry vs Sagicor Life Incorporated


4/4

judged by the Honourable Mr Justice Rampersad. The Usher came out and called the case. On

entry the room was significantly more welcoming to individuals as opposed to that of the

Magistrate's Court. Everyone was in business attire which was mostly of the colour black or very

dark in colour. The judge wore black suit or gown with a white band positioned at his neck line.

A digital clock, audio recording equipment and computers instead of manual writing equipment

were some of the devices used in the recording of the proceedings. The case seemed to deal with

some sort of Fraudulent misrepresentation by Ms. Lorraine's deceased family member who left

her as the beneficiary of his life insurance fund. The judge asked that the error that was made in

the previous years where the deceased had claimed that he did not smoke but was found to have

been a chronic smoker be excluded from the case. He also said that it was fit that after that time

period the records be amended. Both parties agreed and the judge who was looking at the

documents pleaded with the lawyers to reduce the damage to the environment by using too much

paper. The hearing was the continuation of a previous one and the judge dealt with the matter

very quickly, and the matter was adjourned to the 5th of November at 9:15am. The matter was

concluded and everyone who was concerned with the matter exited the room.

Documents

Court Visit2