President of the Law Association, Martin Daly, has been accused of ’abusing a confidence’ by Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes.

Mendes also accused Daly of selectively quoting parts of a letter sent to him by Mendes, concentrating on those parts which criticised Attorney General John Jeremie, but failing to cite those sections of the correspondence which stated that the Law Association was wrong to have supported Justice Rajendra Narine and that the Attorney General was right in the position he adopted with respect to the Narine judgment.

’While you gleefully quote in full what I said about the Attorney General’s accusation that you are a ’liar’, you did not quote or even paraphrase those parts of my letter ... which made clear that I thought Justice Narine was wrong to have referred to the DPP an affidavit which had been struck off the record and that the Law Association was wrong to have supported his actions,’ Mendes wrote in a statement on the matter.

Mendes stated: ’The selective quotation in full of that part of our exchange which would cause the greatest discomfort to the Attorney General, given my relationship with him, without quoting in full those parts which supported his views, causes me the greatest disquiet and explains in large part the rush to publish without my consent.’

Mendes said he never meant for his correspondence to be made public.

’It should have been obvious to you that my response ought not to have been made public unless you had my prior express authorisation, given that 1) your request for my views was made following upon a communication from me which was headed ’private and confidential’ and was therefore impressed with the cloak of confidence; ii) my relationship with the Attorney General is such that it would have been personally, not to mention, professionally embarrassing to have my view made public; iii) you felt constrained ’for the sake of completeness’ to make public my views on the Attorney General’s remarks only if accompanied by disclosure that I was in agreement with his position in relation to Justice Narine’s actions’.

Mendes was responding to the fact that Daly, in a letter to Jeremie on the criticism of Justice Narine’s judgment, stated that Jeremie did not follow the basic principles of expressing disagreement with dignity, restraint and decorum.

Mendes also denied, as represented by Daly, that he (Mendes) gave advice to the council.

’I received no request from, nor did I give any such advice to the council. There was an e-mail exchange between us as colleagues on a matter of mutual interest. There was no request for a formal legal opinion and there was no indication that what I said in the email message would be discussed formally by the council, far less being made public.

I would no more expect you to publish my e-mail, than I would expect you to public my views expressed in the course of a telephone conversation or over drinks at a cocktail party,’ Mendes stated.

He added: ’Members of the (Law) Association must have the right to communicate with each other in confidence without fear that their views, particularly on sensitive matters, would be publicised. I am now forced into the position where I must be extremely guarded in future about what I say, even in a letter which is headed ’Private and Confidential’.’