The Tribune

THE Supreme Court case of Ms Marva Moxey, daughter of recently deceased Ed Moxey, renewed our interest in the five judges from “down under” who flew in from Australia in 1999 to assist the Bahamas in clearing its overburdened court calendar.

Ms Moxey, who on May 23 filed an application for a judicial review of the Bahamas Bar Council’s decision to reject her application to be called to the Bahamas Bar because, they claimed, she lacked the required qualifications, is now awaiting the Supreme Court‘s decision as to whether her call to the Queensland Bar of Australia qualifies her to practice at the Bar in her hometown — the Bahamas.

Ms Moxey’s request for a judicial review was published in The Tribune on September 5. It is understood that Ms Moxey has been criticised for giving this interview to The Tribune. Firstly, The Tribune never interviewed Ms Moxey – who now lives in Freeport — on this matter. However, what The Tribune published was her affidavit filed in the Supreme Court outlining her grievance and requesting the higher court to review the Bar Council’s decision, especially after the Council’s second rejection.

As this matter is before the courts, we have no intention of discussing the details or giving our opinion. The matter is sub judice, which means that the decision to her request is in the sole jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

However, the question of the Australian judges presiding in our courts in 1999 was mentioned in her affidavit when it was claimed that there was no evidence that the Bahamas Bar was notified of their appointment, or whether there was any objection to their appointment at the time.

This really caught our attention and piqued our curiosity and so we decided to call the one that caught the public’s imagination — “Hurricane Howard” – to find out how he wiggled his way into our court system.

On May 15, 1999, in a delightful article written by John Marquis and headed “The no-nonsense judge from down under - ‘Hurricane Howard’ puts the wind up Bahamian barristers’, the “Hurricane” was described as follows:

“He’s abrasive, controversial, unorthodox and – though his critics hate to admit it — incredibly efficient. Already he’s known as ‘Hurricane Howard’ and he has brought a refreshing wind of change to Nassau’s ponderous court system.

“Australian judge Howard Nathan, QC, has all the no-nonsense qualities of an outback bushwhacker. He says what he thinks — and if you don’t like it, he will say it again just to make sure you heard him right the first time.”

This more or less describes this delightful gentleman, now in his 78th year, a retired Supreme Court Judge and former member of Australia’s Immigration Reform Group.

We phoned late Monday night to catch him about lunchtime in Australia — there is a 14 hour time difference between the Bahamas and Australia. We were tired, he was bright and breezy and ready to face the day.

We wanted to know if after being called to the Victoria Bar of Australia he had also been called to the Bar of/or admitted to practice as a Solicitor in the Supreme Court, of “England, Scotland, Northern Ireland or Eire, or of such other country, whether within the Commonwealth or not, as may be prescribed”. One of these categories is apparently the requirement for Call to the Bahamas Bar if a candidate has not qualified in the jurisdiction of the Bahamas.

No, he replied, he was only called to the Victoria Bar of Australia. Then how did he get to the Bahamas and how did he qualify to preside over our court and do such a fantastic job of reducing our court’s calendar in the two months that he was here? It was this impressive task that earned him the sobriquet, “Hurricane Howard.”

He said that he - and the other Australian judges brought in on a temporary basis to bring “swift justice” to the courts — were members of the Australian Legal Resources International, a volunteer organisation. It was Australia’s contribution to assist Commonwealth countries. Those who volunteered were not paid for their services.

He said he recalled that everything was done through the Commonwealth office in London. “In my case,” he said, “I know my invitation came from the Bahamas Bar Council. Before accepting the appointment I made a trip to the Bahamas to make certain that I was wanted. I also remember being welcomed with open arms by Dame Joan Sawyer. Everything that we did was by invitation - we went to all sorts of places – Dominica, Belize, Sri Lanka, Cambodia – to name only a few – to assist their courts.”

He said he paid all his own expenses while in Nassau with the exception of his apartment, which was paid for by the Bahamas government. He even paid for his own car. And, of course, his services were free.

“I was there only a short time,” he recalled Monday, “when I came back one weekend and found my robes had been stolen. They didn’t want me to sit.” These were only his detractors. He had many vocal admirers, even in the legal profession, who wanted more like him sent to the Bahamas on secondment.

”And so what did you do?” we asked. “I put on my suit jacket and went out and sat. In Australia they don’t have all that paraphernalia of wig and gown,” he laughed.

He then recalled one of his favourite memories of a day in a Nassau court.

He said one day after he had robed and went through all the palaver of the court bailiff bawling out the order for all to stand because his lordship approached, he saw standing before him a Rastafarian, wearing a woolly headpiece, rolling his eyes and wobbling around, obviously high on his favourite weed. The case was one of trespass.

“I warned him and told him if I saw him before me again, he could bring his toothbrush because he was going to go to jail.

“Three days later, there he was before me,” the retired judge recalled. “This time he was waving a brush. ‘Got the brush, yer honour’,” he shouted as he raised a large pink toothbrush in the air. I sent him away for contempt. When he was brought back before me, they had shaved his hair all off in prison — it was a terrible assault on his person, especially for a Rastafarian.”

In another case, which involved a bank, an English barrister had been brought out to represent the bank. “He was hopeless and his arrogance was unbelievable,” Mr Nathan recalled. “He looked down on all of us as little colonials. He made a remark that he would not have dared make before a judge in England. He got the shock of his life when I threatened him with contempt if he continued in that vein.”

“I want to take this opportunity to publicly thank both Justice Browne and Justice Nathan for the good work they did with serving on the Bench for the last few months,” then Minister of Justice and Attorney General Tennyson Wells told the House of Assembly. “I expect to have a full report on their programme shortly. The preliminary reports are most encouraging and on behalf of the Government, the Bench and the legal profession. I offer our sincere thanks and appreciation for their good work and example.”

Continued Mr Wells: “If we can get other judges to match that performance there would be no problems in the judicial system.”

Remember, this good work was done by Australian trained lawyers, who were only called to one of the Bars in Australia.