THE SAGA INVOLVING Queen’s Counsel Andrew Pilgrim and Magistrate Graveney Bannister has taken a further twist.
Almost two weeks after the senior attorney’s outburst and expletive in the Bridgetown Traffic Court on April 27, and a week after a contrasting quiet public apology, the matter has been sent to the Disciplinary Committee of the Barbados Bar Association for action.
No date has been set for hearing.
In a complaint signed by Magistrate Bannister, a copy of which was obtained by the MIDWEEK NATION, the application is asking the Disciplinary Committee to find that the behaviour amounted to “conduct unbecoming [of] his profession . . . in his capacity as an attorney at law”.
Series of events
The affidavit, which was dated Monday, outlined the series of events which surrounded the matters of accused Pedro Burgess, who Pilgrim was representing, and the dialogue which ended with Pilgrim shouting “never a*******gain” before he stormed out of the court and ordered his client out with him.
The affidavit said the attorney displayed “such atrocious, degrading and contemptuous behaviour with a number of loud, offensive and insulting words to the court and the police”, that the magistrate was “shocked by the scant and insulting behaviour such as I have never seen coming from any member of the Bar, let alone a Queen’s Counsel, in almost 20 years’ practice of law in both jurisdictions of Bermuda and Barbados”.
It added the attorney became “utterly disrespectful” when he realised his client’s matters were not about to be dismissed and he became progressively “loud and boisterous”, and even referred to the police prosecutors as “fools” because they “believe the tail could wag the dog”.
Bannister, who is also an Anglican priest, added that not only did Pilgrim’s outburst tarnish his (Bannister’s) reputation and discredit his name and position, but that the attorney also “disrespected me to the fullest in the execution of my duties as a magistrate”.
When approached after court yesterday, Magistrate Bannister confirmed his signing of an affidavit, but declined further comment, stating the matter was before the Disciplinary Committee. (HLE)
Read more in the Midweek Nation
