Did Sr Magistrate Tamia Richards break law over Liquor License?
However, it seems there is an erring magistrate on the loose in the person of Tamia Richards.
This came to light late last year before the House of Assembly Standing Finance Committee heading to examine the draft estimates for the year 2015.
The Member for the Third District, the seasoned and well versed Honourable Julian Fraser RA, told the Standing Finance Committee (SFC) that it has been brought to his attention that an anomaly existed regarding the application form for renewing a liquor license or obtaining a liquor license.
The Virgin Islands Party (VIP) boss noted that there was a form, referred to as Schedule 2, in the Ordinance that had been used in the past and published at the Inland Revenue Department. He added that persons were being told that the form was no longer in use and had been given another form which required a Notary Public to sign and it contained other aspects that were not in the Schedule. Hon Fraser queried whether the law had been amended and who amended it.
It was at the time when the Magistracy Unit was before the select committee. To Hon Fraser’s question, Mrs Eunice Crawford, the Court Manager, said she could not speak to the amendment of the Legislation.
Laws broken a violation of House of Assembly
To this, Hon Fraser lectured the committee by advising them that the form in question was a legal document made by the Legislature and that the law required an individual to fill it out. He stated that no one could amend that but the Legislature.
In response, Mrs Crawford promised a discussion with the Attorney General to give the proper advice to the Judicial Officer, who she pointed out as being the Senior Magistrate.
Hon Fraser stated for the record that “if the Schedule in the Law was as he saw it and the Law had not been amended, no one could amend the Law”. Furthermore, the Member for the Third District stated that the law being changed without the proper process was “disenfranchising and inconveniencing numerous persons”.
Hon Fraser, who most have described as the Premier in waiting, told the SFC that December 1 was approaching and everyone had to complete their applications or renewals and the form asked for information that were not in the law and stated that it had to “get fixed in short order.”
Backing up the charismatic Fraser was Territorial At Large Member Honourable Archibald C. Christian who asked for the record to reflect that the person responsible for the change could not make changes to a document that had been approved by lawmakers.
David D. Archer - not me! I don’t know
The Permanent Secretary in the Deputy Governor’s Office David D. Archer, whose group overseas the courts, told the SFC that his office was not involved with the changes being implemented. While being peppered with questions from Hon Christian over the illegal change to the Liquor License form, Mr Archer ducked the questions and told lawmakers that he could not speak for the Magistrate regarding the changes made.
While Mr Archer sought to justify the illegal way in which the application was changed, Hon Fraser brought him back in line by reiterated that this was a Law and only the persons who made the Law could amend it. Hon Fraser added that, if it was Regulations (subsidiary Legislation), it would have to be amended by Cabinet; if it was primary Legislation, it would have to be considered by the House of Assembly.
The veteran Fraser told the SFC that those who changed the law without the proper channel “had a responsibility to those persons whom the changes affected”.
As of today, it remains unclear whether those illegal changes made to the Liquor License Application are still being used.
.png)
.png)
.png)
Follow Us On
30 Responses to “Did Sr Magistrate Tamia Richards break law over Liquor License?”
what was done is a symbol of human aspirations gone wrong for many years in the BVI
VINO YOU WELL KNOW YOU MAKE Fraser put pressure on NDP and Tamia had to stop her p1$$ with the applicatin process
Why must it go to Parliament to change a Form? There was no material change, only for certain documents to be Notarized/Certified as true copies. Why should that have to go to Legislators for approval? The same underlying requirements applied. The only change was for authentication of certain information/documentation.
There are proper channels and the proper requirements must be insisted on. The irony of this is that they are charged with upholding the law and come down hard on others, without exercising mercy.
Where does it stop? Give an inch next they take a mile.
did that to spite a chosen few. too malicious to be a Ma........
very inconsiderate and overly estrogen dominated.
remember a few years ago there was an fin sec who changed the budget after the law was pass and he did not go to jail!!!
This is a disgrace how they can take the law in their own hand...Good Job Fraser that is what you call representation!
Ts when vehicles pass by. What madness is that. We need to take control of what is happening in the BvI and who is allowed to enter.