Defence Force Captain Javonson Willock
Captain Javonson Willock has asked the High Court of Justice to remove the judge presiding over his misfeasance lawsuit against senior Defence Force officials and the Attorney General, citing what he calls a “reasonable apprehension of bias.”
In an affidavit filed Wednesday, Willock claims that remarks and rulings by the judge during hearings have created an environment hostile to him as a self-represented litigant. He argues that this compromises his constitutional right to a fair trial.
The case names Lieutenant Colonel Dalton Graham, Brigadier General Telbert Benjamin, and the Attorney General as respondents. Willock is seeking declarations and other relief related to alleged misfeasance by Defence Force officials.
Willock points to comments made on April 4, when the judge allegedly warned: “I am not going to be easy on you because you are representing yourself… So be warned.” He also cites a September 25 hearing where the judge reportedly said: “If you had retained Counsel, Counsel would have known how to prosecute it. When you decide to represent yourself, you are responsible for what happens to you.”
According to Willock, such remarks pressured him to hire legal representation despite his financial situation and his right to represent himself.
The affidavit further alleges that Willock has faced harsher sanctions than the respondents. He was fined $750 for filing a late cross-examination application, while opposing counsel missed multiple deadlines without penalty. He also claims the court accepted late affidavits from the respondents, despite his objections.
Willock raises concerns over a key witness, Sgt. Manyakie Edwards. He alleges the court accepted the respondents’ claim that Edwards was in China and unavailable for cross-examination, when in fact Edwards was in the United States for training. Willock says this deprived him of the opportunity to challenge important testimony.
Willock insists that the combination of remarks, sanctions, and unverified claims amounts to a pattern of partiality. He argues that unless the judge recuses herself, his right to an impartial hearing will be compromised.
The High Court is expected to rule on the recusal request before the trial, currently scheduled for October, which will determine whether the case proceeds under the current judge or is reassigned.
In all fairness the judge right. You choose to represent yourself so take what you get
Are you an idiot, he chose to represent himself because of his financial status. And if the court realized the matter at hand is beyond his ability should appoint counsel to assist before it becomes a constitutional matter
Only in Antigua,justice is for the high and mighty i wish you the best these people will certainly meet their karma just in the, they love to take advantage of the less fortunate how sad but there is a greater judge over all judges too many things are being swept under the carpet,i feel your pain. Weeping may endure for a night but joy comes in the morning smy
If what Captain Willock is saying is true, then he has a real point. Justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done. Even a self-represented person deserves fairness.
This is going to be an important case to watch. If the High Court agrees with him, it could set a precedent for how self-represented litigants are treated
Absolutely
Let’s hope the court handles this with integrity and ensures all parties feel the process is impartial.
On one hand, the rules of court must apply to everyone. On the other hand, judges should avoid comments that can be perceived as discouraging people from accessing justice
Too often, the system bends in favor of those with money and lawyers. If Willock’s claims are correct, it proves again that ordinary people don’t get a fair shake
He chose to represent himself. The judge warned him of the risks. That’s not unfairness, that’s reality
The court should be very careful here. Everyone has a right to represent themselves without being pressured into hiring a lawyer they cannot afford
This case is going to be watched closely. If he’s right, it could expose a real problem in how justice is being handled.