BVI News

Wheatley on Willock court ruling: ‘Not everything in law is objective’

Dr Wheatley

Deputy Premier, Dr Natalio Wheatley, has argued that everything is not objective in law and suggested that allowances should be made for differences of opinion on court judgments. 

At the time, Dr Wheatley was arguing in support of a motion to have the House of Assembly (HOA) form a select committee to consider options for exempting House Speaker Julian Willock from payment of legal costs ordered by the High Court.

“We know that some judges have one view and others have another view. We like to look at it like everything is objective in law—no it’s not,” Dr Wheatley insisted.

“One judge looks at the particular facts, they listen to how it’s argued and based on how these facts are argued, they come to a particular conclusion,” Dr Wheatley added. 

Did Willock get sound legal advice?

Someone else, he continued, may come to another conclusion altogether. 

“Without having the benefit of all the facts, I will say cautiously, that it is quite possible that the Speaker could have erred,” Dr Wheatley said about the Speaker being on the wrong side of the issue.

However, he questioned whether the Speaker may have been the recipient of sound legal advice and said top legal minds should weigh in on the court’s judgment which found the Speaker liable for the court fees in his aborted injunction.

The Speaker was represented in the court matter by the local law firm, Silk Legal.

Speaker withdrew injunction to avoid bigger fees?

Willock had filed an injunction against three attorneys for the Commission of Inquiry (COI) but later withdrew after failing to get the required permission of the Attorney General (AG) to proceed with the matter.

Dr Wheatley posited that Willock may have withdrawn when he did to avoid ending up with a legal bill higher than what he’s currently ordered to pay.

“Given the risk in a case like this, given the fact that you can incur more fees, it’s quite risky. So, I can see why the Speaker would’ve withdrawn the injunction. You could end up being in for a lot more than the $120,000, or whatever it is,“ the Deputy Premier said.

In the meantime, the aforementioned motion to set up a special committee has successfully passed. The three-man committee has up to two months to effectively decide whether to set aside the court’s ruling and have taxpayers pay Willock’s fees OR uphold the court’s judgement on the matter.

Shares

Copyright 2024 BVI News, Media Expressions Limited. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or distributed.

50 Comments

Disclaimer: BVI News and its affiliated companies are not responsible for the content of comments posted or for anything arising out of use of the comments below or other interaction among the users.

  1. Bad Intentions Bite Back says:

    In life, what is reaped is what is sown. Bad objectives were sown from the inception, thus bad results.

    Accounts may be swollen, but where is the country? where are the people? where are ther needy? where is thet character, integrity and dignity?

    Sad what politics have come to when government coffers are seen as sources of get wealthy quick.

    Like 47
    • BVIslander says:

      When you get to the point of having leaders elected or otherwise that no longer respect or abide by the rulings of the courts you can safely say that all is lost and we are truly in anarchy. It is how all dictatorships start, Idi Amin, Hitler, Stalin, just check history and you will see. To allow this govt to remain in power is a disservice to our democracy.

      Like 40
    • Coco says:

      Where did Sowande get his Degree and Doctorate?
      Asking for a country.

  2. Hmmm says:

    What a crock of s…t.if you dont like a court ruling. You file an appeal. That is how things work in a democracy. Not politicians giving their opinions.

    Like 107
    Dislike 1
  3. furi says:

    Nathalio for a educated person such as yourself…. you damn chupid

    Like 81
  4. Unconventional leadership says:

    Deputy essential you must engage both sides of your brain. The speaker is out of control it has nothing to do about withdrawing to save taxpayers from a bigger bill. If the other half of the grey matter you possess was functioning you would remember he said he was taking the AG to court. That sounds to you like someone who is concern about saving money or someone who ego has been hurt. How dare the AG to go against me. Doesn’t she know I am the esteem one. Shut to h**l up with your nonsense sowando.

    Like 62
  5. SHOWande says:

    a POLITICIAN saying not everything in law is objective. I guess only you guys can see things for the way they are, and everyone else foolish. I am sick of these guys.

    Like 61
    Dislike 1
  6. PT9 says:

    Natalio Wheatley, You are a waste of time all of you know that Julian Willock was wrong but you think the people of the BVI are stupid people but you got that wrong. You asked if Willock got sound legal advice you were the ones that picked Silk Legal to represent you EGG ON YOUR FACE. You all keep coming up with all of these conclusions it is what it is and that means that he should pay. Then you turned around and said this, Wheatley posited that Willock may have withdrawn when he did to avoid ending up with a legal bill higher than what he’s currently ordered to pay. You guys need to stop the BS you know it’s wrong but still trying to cover him, he is not worth it.

    Like 57
    Dislike 1
  7. Chief says:

    The more this man speaks the d**ber he sounds. Will spin this to make it right. You all preach about lawlessness. This is lawlessness at the highest level. The law spoke! If he wants to appeal, there is a mechanism in place for that purpose. You cannot determine that the judgement was not objective and make moves to circumvent the law. You are so stubborn to realize how ignorant you are

    Like 48
  8. Bravo says:

    I really believed in Sowande when he ran for politics. But boy????… he let me down big time. BIG BIG TIME. Never again !!! Just a lil suck up p**$y!!

    Like 53
    Dislike 1
  9. BuzzBvi says:

    Since when did a subcommittee of the HOA become this Nations Court of Appeal?

    Like 63
  10. heckler says:

    I just wish election was next week

    Like 43
  11. Just my two cents says:

    Natalio Wheatley is an i**ot.

    Like 35
  12. Really??!! says:

    I feel if they override the Judge’s ruling and do what they want they should be reprimanded/punished for that.

    Like 28
  13. LMAO! says:

    This guy serious? If you are not happy with a Court Judgement, you APPEAL IT! You cannot take it upon yourself to say you don’t agree and do something else. WTF?

    Like 48
    Dislike 1
  14. Oppinion says:

    As long as someone’s oppinion is different to yours they are stupid or they are a dissappointment. So if you all who blogging were in Government you would be worse than them.

    Like 2
    Dislike 37
    • @'Oppinion' says:

      There are opinions and then there’s nonsense, what Sowande is saying is NONSENSE! Me telling you that it’s illegal to drive without your seatbelt is NOT my opinion, it’s a statement of fact based on written law! The matter of Court Judgements are dealt with at the Judiciary level. If you do not like the result of a case, then you appeal through the necessary legal channels, that’s how law abiding countries deal with such matters. We are border lining North Korea with this behavior and it’s not funny. There is nothing political about this. We have the Deputy Premier basically spouting nonsense. The AG told the Speaker leave the f**king thing alone and he still went ahead. He had SILK Legal who should’ve known better but still forged ahead and here is the Dep Premier talking foolishness. This is not about difference of opinion, it is about rule of law which seems to be a foreign thing around here.

      Like 38
      Dislike 1
    • Chief says:

      He is a lawmaker, not just a regular person so he has to be held accountable when his opinion goes contrary to good governance and promotes lawlessness. Why cant you understand that?

      Like 19
  15. Dr. DoLittle says:

    I am sorry for this man. He is the classic example that having a degree doesn’t make you smart. He is inc***etent and has poor reasoning skills. I listened to his debate to understand why he thought that taxpayers should pay Willock’s bill and I’m still waiting. He talked pure c**p. Pack your bags. It’s time to go.

    Like 34
  16. Jack be Nimble says:

    “However, he questioned whether the Speaker may have been the recipient of sound legal advice and said top legal minds should weigh in on the court’s judgment which found the Speaker liable for the court fees in his aborted injunction.”

    Number 1: He’s saying Silk Legal did not give good advice, so sue them for giving bad advice. (Silk just got thrown under the bus)

    Number 2: All top legal minds will tell you that if Willock is not satisfied he should take the ruling to the Court of Appeal. Not to the House of Assembly to have the judge’s ruling overturned.

    Time to end this nonsense!!!

    Like 31
  17. Not good says:

    Doctor Wheatley, you voted to go ahead with the motion to waste taxpayer money on deciding whether the speaker should pay. And now you are trying to debate it? And trying to say whether the speaker should have gotten better advice from his lawyer? Come on then, what does this speaker have over you guys? Why are you protecting him when he is doing ridiculous things, and wasting taxpayer money??

    Like 23
  18. @opinion says:

    I am in total agreement that persons opinion matters. But can someone help me where did it say that stupid opinions should be respected. Bloggers can do no worst than those who sit in the seat of power. We really thought this lot would be different. But we were proven otherwise.

    Sowande should be recalled for the public good. The speaker should be charged for stupidity. I am in full agreement with Hon Flax running against the government weakest link. Let the games begin. The final act by this inept government has been played. Draw the curtains the horror movie has ended. Next play.

    Like 17
  19. Resident says:

    Right is right and wrong is wrong, wig boy had no authority to file an injunction, the judge rightfully made him pay the bill, it is his bill not the taxpayers

    Like 18
  20. nonsense says:

    How about this, since the Premier wants so bad for the Speaker not to foot his own bill. How about this, $120,000 divided by the nine VIP members and the 1 Jacka** is $12,000 a man. So since they so want to help, and because they already raping the country its only fair they each pay out of pocket. We the taxpayers did not elect her highness so we should not have to pay for her stupid mistakes.

    Like 21
  21. Common sense says:

    Sorry, you can’t decide which legal decisions you like, and, those you don’t, that’s anarchy.

    Like 20
  22. Stop says:

    The VIP government is carrying on like this because they believe the United Nations have their back and the UK won’t do anything, but they are making it easier for the UK to move in, and when that happens the BVI will be in a better position than what we are in now. We cannot move ahead with this government. Trying to overrule a decision by a judge is as bad as it gets.

    Like 17
    • @Stop says:

      When ” the UK to move in, and when that happens the BVI will be in a better position than what we are in now.”

      That will only be true if you are white and of british stock especially.

      You are fooling yourself and are in for a very rude and brutal awakening if you are Black.

      You clearly are not a reader of history, current events or have spent any time in UK.

      Like 2
      Dislike 12
  23. critic says:

    I dont have to read this story because i know this guy is a nincompoop

    Like 11
  24. BVI says:

    For someone that hold a degree and carry DR behind his name ..I’m appalled!

    Like 10
  25. hmm says:

    Not everybody with degrees actually smart either.

  26. Hmmm says:

    Instead of the police harrasing the young men and turning them into criminals, why don’t the go in HOA, the police force, immigration and customs and lock up the criminals there.

  27. Chillin says:

    They seem to think that because the guys left the BVI that means the COI is over? The COI was given up until December to investigate and then January for reporting. I will leave that there.

  28. SMH says:

    SIGN PETITION TO GOVERNOR TO INTRODUCE A MOTION TO DISSOLVE THE CABINET OR HOUSE. THE PEOPLE NEED TO ACT AS WELL AS SPEAKING OUT. THIS IS DARN LUDICROUS!

  29. Citizen says:

    Minister, you complain about bad press and you bring this on yourself because you are dotish. An imb***le

  30. Wellsa says:

    If Foy and his band of jesters felt so strongly that the COI proceedings were illegal based on some technicality, please explain to me why ALL of them (including the wigged one and their highly paid lawyers) willingly participated. Their argument is of no substance whatsoever. Plus, it didn’t matter to us whether the persons asking the questions were lawyers, journalists, or school teachers. This charade in court was just a pathetic attempt to distract the public from the embarrassing details of political corruption that were coming out. They got so used to fooling off the public with hocus pocus that they’re now surprised that we are actually pushing back. If you have a problem with the court’s ruling, tell it to the judge.

    Like 18
  31. @ @ opinion says:

    you got it ? and i must say i got a smile on the latter part of your message , it was neatly put my friend

  32. 2Dayz bloGZS says:

    Todays bloggs ,was very constructive and enlightening from some people who sees to know what is what , nuff respect to ya,ll

  33. Taxpayer says:

    Nathalio!!!!Are you saying it’s ok to ignore the court’s ruling if you are not happy with it?
    So if a murderer is charged for killing someone I guess it’s ok for his friends and family to form a committee to see if the judges ruling was fair.
    Hmmm!! See the precedent you and your fellow g**gsters setting?

  34. STOP says:

    @Stop, You are one of the stupid ones who is listening to the VIP government and don’t want to see an end to all the crap that is Going on, maybe you are on the payroll.

  35. PV says:

    Who paid for the speakers lawyer to file with the court without the permission of the house?

  36. Anonymous says:

    But subjective Sowande.

  37. Riddick says:

    But subjective Sowande

  38. RESPECT says:

    Sowande, you biting off more than you can chew, we can’t all be doctors, but we are not stupid. Are you telling us, that our court is a mockery of JUSTICE and that it should entertain frivolous claims and unorthodox filings?

  39. Vigilance says:

    stare decisis ‘let the decision stand’.

  40. BAD MOVE says:

    OUR COUNTRY IS BEING DIVIDE NOT IN ISSUES BUT BY BRITISH

  41. HOW???? says:

    How has this man advanced politically without knowledge of the appeals court? The legislature makes the laws and the Judiciary dispenses law; he clearly doesn’t even understand his own job.

    I have tried to support the VIP. I remain grateful to them for their attempts to keep us all safe at the beginning of the pandemic, when the world knew nothing; I believe their actions saved many lives.

    This nonsense is the end for me; they are either ignoring their better judgment or simply don’t understand the functions of our government. I no longer care which. None of them is doing their job and they are embarrasing the Territory in the process.

Leave a Comment

Shares