St. Lucia High Court
Cause List – 30th to 31st January 2023
Anguilla High Court
Cause List – 2nd February 2023
Court of Appeal Sitting
1st February 2023
Court of Appeal Sitting
27th February 2023
Vacancy Notice – Senior Crown Counsel, Office of the Attorney General, Grenada
Vacancy Notice – Legal Drafter, Office of the Attorney General, Grenada
Claim No. AXAHCV2021/0025
Moise J.
Delivered: 25/01/2023
Criminal Case No. 7 of 2022
Astaphan J.
Delivered: 20/01/2023
Criminal Case No. 13 of 2021
Astaphan J.
Delivered: 20/01/2023
Criminal Case No. 4 f 2022
Thomas W.R Astaphan, K.C J.
Delivered: 20/01/2023
Claim No. MNIHCV2021/0020
Morley J.
Delivered: 20/01/2023
Claim No. MNIHCV2021/0015
MNIHCV2021/0016
Morley J.
Delivered: 20/01/2023
Claim No. SLUHCV2017/0334
Phillip J.
Delivered: 20/01/2023
Claim No. SLUHCV2020/0200 formerly SLUHCV2019/0327
Cenac-Phulgence J.
Delivered: 12/01/2023
In this corner we highlight the cases of interest for your reading pleasure
David Dorsett v Attorney General was an appeal by David Dorsett, an attorney at law, who called upon the Court of Appeal to answer the question of whether an attorney can be appointed amicus curiae against his will. Although this question had become largely academic at the date of the hearing due to a change in circumstances, the Court heard the appeal as it was a matter of public importance under our system of law.
It was the appellant’s contention that such an appointment offended his right under the Code of Ethics to refuse or withdraw from employment.
The Court found that the power to appoint an attorney amicus curiae is derived from the court’s inherent jurisdiction, i.e. its reserve of powers as a superior court that is essential to the administration of justice and the maintenance of the rule of law and the Constitution. Any limitation on this inherent jurisdiction must arise from express legislation or necessary implication. The Code of Ethics does not meet either of these criteria, and so cannot limit the inherent jurisdiction of the court to appoint an attorney amicus curiae. The appellant therefore could not rely on the Code of Ethics to decline his appointment.
The Court also observed that the product of our adversarial system of justice is that court orders are almost invariably made against the will of persons, save for consent orders. Every person who is subject to an order of the court risks facing sanctions for contempt for failure to obey. Therefore, the order of the court appointing the appellant as amicus curiae was not made in vain, simply because it was made against his will.