Sanctus – After months of delays, injunctions, and questions of the legitimacy of the process, Justice Julian Young of the Supreme Court was declared guilty of “the high misdemeanour of bribery, corruption, and abuse of high office” by the Impeachment Commission created to investigate the on-going allegations that he received money in return for issuing certain rulings. The Commission, which was created in March of this year, now sends their report to the House of Deputies and the Senate, where both chambers are required to pass the motion to remove Young from his office.
In response to the Commission’s verdict, a spokesperson for the Justice has described the impeachment as “highly prejudicial” as the criminal case against Young has not yet been brought to a conclusion. “Justice Young has not been found guilty of any offence by the courts of this land”, his spokesperson Matthew Pearson said today. “Being found ‘guilty’ by this Impeachment Commission is highly prejudicial in the context of the criminal trial against Justice Young which is currently on-going. We will be asking the High Court for an injunction to prevent the articles being voted on by Parliament. The possibility of requesting a mistrial has not yet been ruled out”.
Legal analysts have also questioned the impeachment process, with many saying that it was premature and that Young could be granted a mistrial in the wake of being found guilty. Craig Daniels, senior parter at prestigious lawfirm Brosnan, Connery & Moore, has said that because Young has already been found guilty by a quasi-judicial body of the office also levied against him before the courts, the issue of double jeopardy is a very real one. “If the Impeachment Commission was asked to find him guilty or not guilty of the offence of bringing his office into disrepute, that would have be fine”, Daniels said. “But because they, in effect, tried him of the crime he was facing in the courts, and then found him guilty, that’s basically sending of the message of, look, here’s a quasi-judicial body saying this guy is guilty of doing this. Now he’s going to go to the courts and have to fight to same charge again, although a ‘verdict’, if you can call it that, has already been issued. Young is a Supreme Court Justice, he sits on the highest court in the land and has a brilliant legal mind; in fact, it’s probably better than the lawyers he has representing him. If he can find a way out of the criminal charge, he’ll do it”.
Politicians, however, have welcomed the verdict from the Impeachment Commission. Secretary for Home Affairs, Justice & Equality, Dr. George Merlinson, today said that the Government intended to vote to remove the Justice from his position on the bench. When questioned about whether or not the impeachment was prejudicial, Merlinson rejected the accusations saying that Young was being tried in the courts on criminal charges and that the Impeachment Commission tried him on his suitability for office. “The two are very distinct”, he added.
However, a memo leaked from the Attorney General’s office earlier today showed that the lawyer’s office had concerns over the Impeachment Commission’s mandate. “It would be more suitable if the Commission investigated whether or not the position of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court has been brought into disrepute due to the allegations brought against the Justice, and his response to them, and not whether or not he is actually guilty of those allegations. Any other option could render a criminal case against the Justice being found null and void.” Calls to the Attorney General’s office remain unreturned at print.
Although both chambers are scheduled to vote on the impeachment later this week, this could be delayed or halted entirely should an injunction against the vote going ahead be granted.
DAVID FLETCHER, Special Correspondent
