20 Aug 2009

Shermie again

It’s been a long, long time since Shermie McNicolls made it into my blog. The last time was when he was slapped with several charges by the JLSC (we ent hear anything bout that since, but I guess the appeal by the JLSC to increase the charges to 6 is still before the Privy Council).

Anyway, aside from crooked land deals, questionable legal decisions, and outright baffling judgements on the bench, why would Shermie be in the news?

Breaking the law, it seems.

Shermie was charged with permitting a police officer assigned to the Special Branch Unit to drive his vehicle without a valid certificate of insurance.

Now, I ent no lawyer, but something seems to be out of kilter with that charge. Follow me a little here…

Shermie has a driver, PC Simon who was also charged with driving a vehicle without a valid certificate of insurance.

The prosecution claimed that on February 13, 2009, Mc Nicolls permitted Simon to drive his Hilux van along the Lady Young Road, Belmont.

The charges, police said, stemmed from an accident in which a pick-up, driven by a woman of Mt Hope, collided with Mc Nicolls' vehicle.

Okay, so the Chief Magistrate, the law onto himself who decided that he ought not to testify against Sat Sharma after making serious allegations, also is not aware by law his vehicle is supposed to be insured?

Now look at the chupidness going on here. He is charged with ‘permitting a police duncey to drive his vehicle without insurance’. Not with not having insurance. You see the difference?

Now, it’s Shermie’s responsibility to see that his vehicle has insurance, not the job of PC Simon. Now, the charge is not failure to produce an insurance certificate eh, which means that it has been discovered that the Chief Magistrate has been found to have no insurance on his Hilux, which is driven on the roads, and which was involved in an MVA.

So why that particular charge, and why the wording of the charge? Makes me wonder if such a charge exists on the books and whether this is a gem of a strategy to get Shermie off down the line.

Keep in mind, that after years of Licensing Officers charging people, having them pay fines or serve prison time, Shermie lately ruled that the said Officers have no authority to lay charges. Slick as a snake greased in hot hog fat, the members of the Judiciary find innovative ways to protect their own.

By the way, who is going to compensate the poor lady who was also in the accident? Are we now going to see Shermie as the defendant in a law suit?

Comments