Wednesday, November 05, 2014

Walter Rodney Commission of Inquiry - Charles Rishiram Ramson on Guyana Police Force

A retired Judge enlightened view on the Guyana Police Force
A 1986 picture of Tactical Services Unit members
some of whom served in 1979.
The member circled in red is very special
"Mr. Pieters: You see that is the problem with stereotyping...
Justice Ramson: That is not stereotyping. You do not know that in this country in order to relieve
the country of the crime rate in those days Mr. Burnham took all the people who were known criminals and made them Policemen.
Mr. Pieters: You see again that is the problem …
Justice Ramson: You do not know that, I am telling you.
Mr. Pieters: You see that is the problem. You are now denigrating the character of people who served this country...."

By Selwyn A. Pieters, B.A., LL.B., L.E.C.
Lawyer & Notary Public (Ontario, Canada)
Attorney-at-Law (Republic of Guyana, Island of Trinidad)
Posted on November 05, 2014
Updated on November 07, 2014

As a lawyer with significant experience in human rights, civil rights and non-adversarial matters, I was retained to represent its interest of the Guyana Trades Union Congress (GTUC) at the Walter Rodney Commission of Inquiry. I am currently co-counsel representing the Guyana Trades Union Congress in the Walter Anthony Rodney Commission of Inquiry in Georgetown, Guyana.

Whether as Judicial Officers or Information Commissioner, lawyer or ordinary Joe Public. stereotyping is simply wrong. That was the point to which I took on Charles Ramson on November 03, 2014. Part of Charles Ramson examination in Chief before the Walter Rodney Commission of Inquiry comes to mind when providing evidence on the predominantly Black, Afro-Guyanese, Tactical Services Unit of the Guyana Police Force:

Justice Ramson: Correct. He did not had a car at the time so wanted a lift home from the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP)’s place and I offered to drop him home, but we wanted to go and see this… have a look and see what is going on at this meeting because the political temperature was rising, the thermostat was bursting at the seams. So we wanted to see what was going on, not to be participants that is why we stood so far away about 500 yards away from the meeting and if you know Mr. Chang, Justice Chang is not a man who likes to be involved at a political level. So while we were there, we noticed a squad of Policemen or people who were dressed in Pplice clothing. In those days we used to call it the riot squad. I do not know it is the same as the TSU now, but the Riot Squad had a particular set of clothes that you know when they are coming and they were big hunky, five foot, six foot and six foot four people, the mere presence use to frighten them.
Mr. Hanoman: They used to make you as well afraid Justice Ramson?
Justice Ramson: Of course, what happen to me, I do not look like six foot, four. I may have a very strong mind and personality, I do not ever believe I can be described as a coward, but I can tell you I was no match physically for those… some of them said they were not Policemen, that is evidence in the case. The defense in the case was these people were thugs from the House of Israel and the Court of Appeal gave them short shrift it is all part of the evidence. When you read the case you will see it.
Mr. Hanoman: So this group of Police who you identified as Riot Police were approaching yourself and Justice Ian Chang…
Justice Ramson: And as they were coming, they were clearing the streets people who were standing on the road, hanging around, going into the people’s yard and pulled them out. So Justice Chang and I were standing and watching and seeing what they were doing not knowing we were going to be the last victims. Well when I say “we” not him. So when they approached, I knew the man who was the Officer in charge because I interacted, I did a lot of criminal works in those days and I had to interact with most of the Policemen they even used to call me “Al Pacino” and “Serpico”. They had a big film called “Justice for All” or something and “Serpico”. So the Policemen who got to know me they gave me that moniker.

Cross-examination by Pieters - part of my aim here was to expose the absurdity  of the testimony, particularly in so far as members of the Tactical Services Services Unit are concerned. He you will see when challenged on his height desgription, it changed from 6'4", to 6'2" or 6'3":

Mr. Pieters: Let me quote the passage to you Justice Ramson. It says, “It is quite evident that the Police following their directive from the Divisional Headquarters went to the venue of the proposed meeting prepared for and ready to deal with such preaches as might occur. Even the Riot Squad was there, but they did not go into action nor did in support of his viva voce evidence speak to any incidence whatsoever involved in the preach of the peace”. Do you recall that passage from your case?
Justice Ramson: I am accepting you reading verbatim, I do not recall it, but they obviously are referring to where the actual venue was, not where I was. I was 500 yards away from there.
Mr. Pieters: I appreciate that you were …
Justice Ramson: I accept Counsel’s word, I do not …
Mr. Pieters: So the Riot Squad, you say that it was member of the Riot Squad that attacked you.
Justice Ramson: That is how I know them; I see it marked on their helmet and I am telling you again I know about the different in physical attributes of different departments of the Police Force. They got certain people who are traffic people and they would be of a certain kind of stature. When it comes to the resisting any encroachments on the right of the State, they have these very large fellas and they belong to Special Squads. The Special Branch of this country, you do not even know that they are Special Branch; some of them look like market people.
Mr. Pieters: Let us deal with the size of Police Officers because you seem to be sort of misrepresenting or seem to be portraying that protest, misrepresentation of what Police Officers were at that material time. Any Police Officers that were hired by the Guyana Police Force came through the Felix Austin Police College before they were just dispersed to any specific unit.
Justice Ramson: That College came long after the time I am talking about.
Mr. Pieters: So you are saying that Eve Leary did not exist in 19 …
Justice Ramson: But it was not called Felix Austin …
Mr. Pieters: … well, but it was there.
Justice Ramson: … they must have gone to some kind preliminary training school. I do not know where, but I can tell you Felix Austin was a distinguished Police and he, the name …
Mr. Pieters: I am not concerned who Felix Austin was, I am concerned about where Police Officers were hired and where they were trained so you just answer the questions I asked you and nothing else.
Justice Ramson: Yes well, I can try that.
Mr. Pieters: Let me ask you this, you would know that the Guyana Police Force has any other Police organisation at least until, let us say the 1980’s, they had a height requirement for example, for people who want to be members of their organisations.
Justice Ramson: That was a requirement and it was always the case that you need to be of a certain height before you were able to qualify to be admitted to the Police Force.
Mr. Pieters: So it would be that any member of the Guyana Police Force would have been over 5’ 11”?
Justice Ramson: I do not think 5’ 11’; I think about 5’ 6”.
Mr. Pieters: I am telling you what their height requirement was, 5’ 11” and over.
Justice Ramson: If that is what the record is, I would accept that.
Mr. Pieters: So when you saw people and they were around 6 feet tall or over, that would have been consistent with the hiring practice at the time across the board?
Justice Ramson: I am speaking about 6’ 4”.
Mr. Pieters: And how many people that you say would have been about 6’ 4” that would have been in the Tactical Service Unit on 22nd August, 1979?
Justice Ramson: The people who I saw on that day, none of them were less than 6’ 2”; 6’ 3”.

Mrs. Samuels-Brown: I am sorry to interrupt your flow Counsel; could you tell me the source of the height per commendation that you just put forward, the height requirement, Counsel? You said it is 5’ 11” …
Mr. Pieters: 5’ 11”.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: … where is this source of that?
Mr. Pieters: It is in the Guyana Police Force recruitment material. I will have it laid over to the Commission …
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: It is in the Guyana Police Force, what?
Mr. Pieters: … recruitment material. I would have it laid over to the Commission.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: Thank you.
Mr. Chairman: Counsel, I am concerned about relevance. How is that likely to be helpful?
Mr. Pieters: Sorry, I just missed what you just said, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: I was saying I was beginning to get concerned about relevance. How is it likely to be helpful to us?
Mr. Pieters: How is what, relevant or helpful to you?
Mr. Chairman: The questions that you are opposing and the evidence that you are trying to extract.
Mr. Pieters: The Witness is being cross-examined on the evidence he gave this morning. He gave that evidence and he is being cross-examined. Let me ask you this, going to the meat of …
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: I think you are saying that you are not as menacing he made them out to be or they were not a Special Squad of menaces?
Mr. Pieters: Well, yes, he tried sort to have us to a stereotypical image what Tactical Services Unit Officers would look like.
Mr. Chairman: I thought he was referring to conduct rather than appearance.
Mr. Pieters: No, he was referring to appearance. You look at the transcripts. I was here and I heard it. He is trying to stereotype Officers in a way that is inappropriate.
Mr. Pieters: You would admit or agree that you are pretty litigious. You already had the experience with in respect to the Persaud Case so you had already access the Courts successfully and you know how to access the Court?
Justice Ramson: Yes, but I do not like the word “pretty litigious”; if a man beat me up tomorrow I will take the State to Court.
Mr. Pieters: And that is acceptable. You would also agree that under the Police Act, they were disciplined and employment consequences for Officers who misused their authority as Police Officers?
Justice Ramson: There is a Police Disciplinary Act, I think is Chapter 16:02 and it creates the framework for disciplining the Policemen, but before you discipline the Policeman you have to know who the Policeman is. You cannot go and say Mr. Doe, like you can do in America, I think, Mr. Doe. You got to know the man name and all of them look alike. They do not look like Mr. Williams different from Mr. Hanoman.
Mr. Pieters: You see that is the problem with stereotyping Mr. …
Justice Ramson: That is not stereotyping. You do not know that in this country in order to relieve the country of the crime rate in those days Mr. Burnham took all the people who were known criminals and made them Policemen.
Mr. Pieters: You see again that is the problem …
Justice Ramson: You do not know that, I am telling you.
Mr. Pieters: You see that is the problem. You are now denigrating the character of people who served this country, but that is not …
Justice Ramson: That is not nothing denigrating.

Mr. Pieters: … excuse me, just let me finish, but I am not here to debate that point. I am just here to ask you questions and have you answered them.
Justice Ramson: But when you tell me I am stereotyping them, you do not know what the context is. I live through the time.
Mr. Pieters: And you say that, well I am not going to repeat your defamatory remarks about Officers.

Justice Ramson: Defamatory? I never defamed anybody. I am telling you the truth; I am like Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi.
Mr. Pieters: So you, well … anyway. You did not…
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: Sorry, I am going to dwell on this a little. Justice Ramson, as a private practitioner and as a Judge, you did find that there were honourable persons in the Police Force?
Justice Ramson: Oh yes, on to now.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: From 1979 up to now?
Justice Ramson: On to now.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: Thank you.
Justice Ramson: Not every person in the barrel was rotten.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: I thought that is what you meant.
Justice Ramson: No.

Mrs. Samuels-Brown: That it was everybody.
Justice Ramson: No, no.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: I just wanted to give you the opportunity to clarify.

 Mr. Pieters: Very well and you testified earlier this morning that there were members of the Death Squad or the Tactical Services Unit (TSU) present?
Justice Ramson: I did not know them as the Tactical Services Unit (TSU) at the time. Maybe that name was given afterwards. I know them as the Riot Squad from Eve Leary.
Mr. Pieters: Well let me suggest this to you about the Tactical Services Unit. Riot control is just one aspect of the functions that the Tactical Services Unit would be performing?
Justice Ramson: Well, if they were so named at that time. I knew them as the Riot Squad.
Mr. Pieters: Right because when you saw them outside of Police Headquarters, you would see them on riot control duties?
Justice Ramson: I did not see them outside Police Headquarters.
Mr. Pieters: I thought you testified that you did on 22nd August, 1979.
Justice Ramson: No, they were running down the road on Sheriff Street. That is not Police Headquarters.
Mr. Pieters: Right that is outside of Police Headquarters?
Justice Ramson: No that is not outside of. Outside of means that there is a proximity issue. You mean when they are not at their home base and they are doing duties outside. But not outside of the office itself or the department.
Mr. Pieters: Outside part of their duties, you would have seen them guarding the police compounds, for example Police Headquarters you would see them protecting that compound?
Justice Ramson: I have no recollection ever going there to see whether they are protecting the compound.
Mr. Pieters: Very well. But what you do know and that is in your decision at page 224 is that the Riot Squad, as you call it, they were not put into action on 22nd August, 1979?
Justice Ramson: They were not?
Mr. Pieters: That is right. That is what your decisions say.
Justice Ramson: Well I do not know. The people I know who were coming down Sheriff Street, I recognised them from their uniform and the helmets they were wearing and it was marked Riot Squad.
Mr. Pieters: There is not a debate that the Riot Squad or the Tactical Services Unit was or was not present. They were present, but they did not go into action in terms of the dispersal of people who were assembled?

The extracts of the November 07, 2014 hearing at the Walter Rodney Commission of Inquiry on the above noted subject matter is below. Please note the Commission's statement and Pieters statement on behalf of the GTUC:

Mr. Chairman [Sir. Richard L. Cheltenham, K.A., Q.C., Ph.D.]: We are back in session, and I wish to begin by indicating to those present as well as to those public that we apologise for the delay in resuming; but we took the opportunity of the break with all present: Commission Counsel, and the Secretariat, to set dates for the New Year, to the extent that this is our last sitting for this year. We had to make sure we were all armed with our 2015 diaries. I did promise before the break that I would make a statement in relation to a complaint made by our Retired Justice Ramson, in relation to two articles that appeared in the Stabroek News, as well as the Kaieteur News. The statement reads as follows, “Retired Justice, Mr. Charles Ramson testified before the Commission on Monday, and Tuesday last. In a report of his testimony in the Stabroek News of Tuesday, November 04th, he is reported as having testified that he observed a team of policemen...” and the exact word here is, “...who he described as...” and I quote, “ the red squad breaking up the WPA meeting that afternoon. He described the Policemen as “Big Monkey” 6.7” people, adding that their mere presence was intimidating.” In the Kaieteur News, dated Thursday, 06th of November, 2014; there is, at page 17, a headline “GTUC condemns Ramson’s “Monkey” reference to Policemen.” The Kaieteur News added in one paragraph, “While the statement was not met with any objections from those participating in the Commission of Inquiry (COI), it did not escape the attention of GTUC.”
Mr. Chairman: The testimony given before the Commission is recorded and verbatim reports are provided every evening. The tape has been checked as well as the verbatim reports and the word “monkey” does not appear on the tape or in the verbatim reports. Put differently, there is no evidence before us that the word “monkey” was ever used in the course of his testimony by Justice of Appeal Ramson. In these circumstances, the Commission had nothing to object to and Mr. Ramson had been inaccurately reported. In the event described the Stabroek News may wish to take note of this statement which are making and to withdraw the statement and the make the appropriate amends to Mr. Ramson. We have the audio and will play it for the benefit of the public.
[Audio of the 03rd November, 2014 played for the benefit of the public]
“Justice Ramson: 1970 was the… the Act was passed in 1970 and no further appeals could be had but all appeals that were pending or in the system had to be finished by 1972. That Declaration of the Republic in 1970 had some significance as well because we no longer could access honours from the Queen and the last person to get on the last day of 1969 who received a Knight Wood, was and still and is extraordinary and distinguished Jurist, I am not going to call his name, you blow whistle and I will tell you if it is true.
Counsel to the Commission Mr. Hanoman: Could I now bring you to the case of Charles Rishi Ram Ramson against Lloyd Barker, Commissioner of Police and Attorney General.
Mr. Hanoman: That name is a reference to you, Justice Ramson?
Justice Ramson: Yes, that was inspired by a beating…” “…August in 1975…” “…but the Riot Squad had a particular set of clothes that you know when they are coming and they were big hunky, five foot, six foot and six foot four people, the mere presence use to frighten them.
Mr. Hanoman: They used to make you as well afraid Justice Ramson?
Mr. Ramson: Correct. “…but the riot squad had a particular set of clothes that you know when they are coming and they were big hunky, five foot, six foot and six foot four people, the mere presence use to frighten them.”
Mr. Chairman: In the transcript of the day’s proceeding Monday, the 03rd November, 2014 at page 18 this is the Verbatim Report. “While we were there we noticed a squad of Policemen or people who were dressed in police clothing. In those days we used to call it the riot squad. I do not know if it is the same as the TSU now, but the Riot Squad had a particular set of clothes so that you, but the Riot Squad had a particular set of clothes that you know when they are coming and they were big hunky, five foot, six foot and six foot four people, the mere presence used to frighten them.”
Mr. Williams: “Hunky”
Mr. Chairman: “Hunky” “…big hunky, five foot, six foot and six foot four people…” so that the word “monkey” was not appeared on the tape. We have no memory of it being used here. So in the circumstances the newspaper may wish to take note and I leave it to the party’s concern. Thanks.
Attorney for the Guyana Trades Union Congress (GTUC) [Mr. Selwyn Pieters]: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say, Selwyn Pieters for the GTUC that my client, Mr. Lincoln Lewis, is in the  room as well. When I heard Justice Ramson spoke at the Commission on Tuesday, I believe it was, I was anxious to see the Stabroek News to see what was reported and later listened to the rebroadcast of this hearing on NCN so I knew at that point that it was “hunky” as opposed to “monkey”. I was concerned at that point where the term “monkey” was used as to what the impact would have been on the reading public. And so, the GTUC did read the newspapers and took cognizance of what the newspaper reported as opposed to what the transcript would have been and I did not have the opportunity to review the press statement before it went, otherwise, I would have caught it and corrected it. So on behalf of GTUC, I am apologising that they took the word or the reporting of the Stabroek News as something that actually was the records of these proceedings when they were not. But I would say this as well we were concerned and the record illustrates it that we were concerned about how Justice Ramson described the Policemen of that era. He spoke of the Policemen being recruited by the Prime Minister of the day as criminals and thieves I felt that those were inappropriate stereotyping of police officers and the way he described as…
Mr. Chairman: One minute…
Mr. Pieters: Excuse me, let me finish.
Mr. Chairman: I thought I was giving you the opportunity to apologise now you want to go beyond the issue that we are dealing with?
Mr. Pieters: The issue that we are dealing with and I think the crux of what the Stabroek News Article meant to portray is the inappropriate stereotyping of people. We have apologise that the term “monkey” was used in the Stabroek News and in the Kaieteur News, but the issue of stereotyping is an issue that was alive and well during Justice Ramson's testimony here and that is an issue as a Human Rights Lawyer that I was alive to at the time.
Mr. Chairman: That is not an issue for us.
Mr. Pieters: I am simply using this opportunity to speak on it as well because it must be noted that there were stereotypes used in his evidence that was challenged.
Mr. Chairman: With respect, Mr. Pieters, there is no issue before us of stereotyping so why are you using the opportunity to speak on the issue of stereotyping there is no stereotyping before the Commission. Mr. Ramson made his comments, he testified. When the time comes for submission, you may say all of that, but that has no issue before us whether he used stereotyping or not.
Mr. Pieters: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: Thank you too.
Attorney for the People’s National Congress (PNC) [Mr. Basil Williams]: Just to say Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, that if Mr. Ramson had used the term “monkey” in that box there, I surely would have invade against that term.
Mr. Chairman: I think all of us would have.
Mr. Williams: Yes.
Mr. Chairman: But there is no evidence at all that Justice used the expression.
Mr. Williams: I must, well I must say I did not hear any “monkey”.
Mr. Chairman: So I think from my view point we have put the matter to rest. What happens now between Justice Ramson and the newspaper is a different matter, no concerns of ours and I would like to indicate that indeed but I did not thank Mr. Pieters for the concession which he made on behalf of his client.
[Cheltenham's attempt to silence me on the nub of the issue has me concerned on the issue of stereotyping and adding a stamp of legitimacy to it - anyone can read the transcripts of the evidence of November 04, 2014 and form their own conclusion. I rely on the transcript, my life experience and the contextual analysis of racism and stereotyping rather than this abrogation of responsibility to deal with such issues where and when they arise.]

Walter Rodney Commission of Inquiry Round 6, Day 10 Highlights,New Guyana Media,  November 03, 2014

GTUC apologises to Ramson over inaccurate statement, Stabroek News, November 08, 2014

Justice Ramson: I said “hunky” not “monkey” — Guyana Times, November 08, 2014

Apology by Stabroek News - Stabroek News, November 08, 2014

Selwyn A. Pieters, B.A. (Toronto), LL.B. (Osgoode), L.E.C. (U.W.I). Lawyer & Notary Public (Ontario). Attorney-at-Law (Republic of Guyana and Republic of Trinidad and Tobago).

Selwyn has appeared at all levels of courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada in Attorney General of Ontario v. Michael J. Fraser, et al., 2011 SCC 20, Ontario Court of Appeal in Freeman-Maloy v. Marsden 267 D.L.R. (4th) 37, 208 O.A.C. 307 (C.A.); Bangoura v. Washington Post (2005) 202 O.A.C. 76, (2005) 17 C.P.C. (6th) 30 (Ont.C.A.), the Federal Court of Appeal in The Honourable Sinclair Stevens v. The Conservative Party of Canada, [2005] F.C.J. No. 1890, 2005 FCA 383. He represented Correctional Manager Mariann Taylor-Baptiste in the ground-breaking competing rights case of Taylor-Baptiste v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union, 2012 CarswellOnt 8965, 2012 HRTO 1393, 2012 C.L.L.C. 230-022 reconsideration denied in 2013 CarswellOnt 1033, 2013 HRTO 180, 2013 C.L.L.C. 230-019 at the HRTO; Civil Rights lawyer Charles Roach in the Oath cases of McAteer, Topey, Dror-Natan v. Canada (Attorney General) 2013 CarswellOnt 13165, 2013 ONSC 5895 (ON S.C.) and Roach et al. v. Canada 2012 CarswellOnt 7799, 2012 ONSC 352 (ON S.C.) which is a constitutional challenge to the oath in the Citizenship Act.

Selwyn has provided representation to persons charged with various criminal offenses including Drugs: Selling and Possessing, Shoplifting, Serious Offences of Violence: Aggravated Assault, Assault with a Weapon and Robbery, Gun Offences, sexual assault, robbery, theft, extortion, HIV/AIDS litigation; fraud, break & enter, attempted murder, murder, regulatory offences under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, professional disciplinary offences, and conspiracy offences.

Selwyn has also been involved in drugs, guns and gang trials including "Project Green Apple", "Project XXX" and "Project Kryptic", "Project Corral" which are some of Canada's largest Criminal Organization prosecutions. Selwyn is currently counsel for an accused in "Project Feline" and Project Revival" drug sting operations. In Project Corral, Selwyn's advocacy resulted in the "gang expert" evidence being discredited and the Criminal Organization charges against his client and others being tossed out by the Court: R. v. Agil, Chambers, Fullerton, Jimale and Brown 2011 CarswellOnt 18099 (Ont. CJ. July 14, 2011, Khawley J.)

Selwyn recently obtained an extraordinary remedy of costs agains the Crown for failure to provide disclosure of police officer memo book notes in R. v. W.(J.), [2013] O.J. No. 2284, 2013 CarswellOnt 6322, 2013 ONCJ 270 (Ont. CJ.).

Selwyn is the successful litigant in the recent racial profiling case involving carding of three Black men: Peel Law Association v. Pieters, 2013 CarswellOnt 7881, 2013 ONCA 396, 228 A.C.W.S. (3d) 204, 116 O.R. (3d) 81, 306 O.A.C. 314, 9 C.C.E.L. (4th) 233, [2013] O.J. No. 2695.

Selwyn has provided crucial legal advise to clients duringhigh risk situations such as gun calls, hostage taking, barricaded persons, mentally disturbed persons, high risk arrests and public order control in situations where there is significant public disorder, lawlessness, personal injury and property damage. Charges of cause disturbance and assault police can be pretextual racial profiling charges: R. v. Roach, 2005 O.J. No. 5278 (Ont. C.J.) (Criminal Law - Causing a Disturbance); R. v. Ramsaroop, 2009 CarswellOnt 5281, 2009 ONCJ 406 (Ont. CJ.); R. v. Taylor, 2010 CarswellOnt 6584, 2010 ONCJ 396, [2010] O.J. No. 3794 (Ont. CJ.)

Selwyn was co-counsel in the world's first-ever sexual HIV transmission murder trial of Johnson Aziga in Hamilton, Ontario. See, for example, R. v. Aziga, 2008 CanLII 39222 (ON S.C.); R. v. Aziga; 2008 CarswellOnt 4300 (ON S.C.) and R. v. Aziga, 2008 CanLII 29780 (ON S.C.)

Selwyn argued on racial profiling includes: R. v. Steele, 2010 ONSC 233 (ON S.C.) and R. v. Egonu, 2007 CanLII 30475 (ON SC) - Driving while black and R. v. Bramwell-Cole [2010] O.J. No. 5838 (ON S.C.) - walking while black.

Selwyn has acted in exclusion cases at the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada: See, Song Dae Ri (Re) 2003 CarswellNat 4527; (2004) 36 Imm. L.R. (3d) 203; Liang (Re) 2002 CarswellNat 4719; 33 Imm. L.R. (3d) 251.

Selwyn has appeared in  Coroners' Inquest including: Coroner's Inquest into the Death of Negus Topey (May 02, 2005, Coroners' Court, Dr. K.A. Acheson) Ruling on Application for Standing; Coroner's Inquest into the Death of Dwight Haughton (Coroners' Court, Dr. Evans) Ruling on Application for Standing; Coroner's Inquest into the Death of Jeffrey Reodica(May 04, 2006, Coroners' Court, Dr. B. Porter) Ruling on Application for Standing

Selwyn also acted as co-counsel with C. Nigel Hughes for the families of three deceased persons killed during a civil demonstration in Linden, Guyana, at the Linden Commission of Inquiry. Selwyn is currently co-counsel with Brian M. Clarke representing the Guyana Trades Union Congress in the Walter Anthony Rodney Commission of Inquiry in Georgetown, Guyana.

No comments: