Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court
  • About Us
    • Brief History of the Court
    • Court Overview
    • Meet the Chief Justice
    • Past Chief Justices
      • Sir Hugh Rawlins
      • Sir Brian George Keith Alleyne
      • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Adrian Saunders
      • Hon. Sir Charles Michael Dennis Byron
      • Rt. Hon. Sir Vincent Floissac
      • Honourable Sir Lascelles Lister Robotham
      • More..
        • Hon. Neville Algernon Berridge
        • Sir Neville Peterkin
        • Sir Maurice Herbert Davis
        • Justice P. Cecil Lewis
        • Sir Allen Montgomery Lewis
    • Judicial Officers
      • Justices of Appeal
        • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Davidson Kelvin Baptiste
        • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Mario Michel
        • Her Ladyship, the Hon. Justice Gertel Thom
        • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Paul Anthony Webster [Ag.]
        • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Gerard Farara, KC
        • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Trevor Ward, KC
      • High Court Judges
      • Masters
    • Court of Appeal Registry
    • Court Connected Mediation
      • Court-Connected Mediation Practice Direction Forms
      • Mediation Publications
    • More…
      • Career Opportunities
      • Legal Internship
      • Transcript Requests
      • Directory
  • Judgments
    • Privy Council
    • Caribbean Court of Justice
    • Court Of Appeal Judgments
    • High Court Judgments
    • Digests of Decisions
    • Country
      • Anguilla
      • Antigua & Barbuda
      • Grenada
      • Montserrat
      • Saint Kitts and Nevis
      • Saint lucia
      • Saint Vincent & The Grenadines
      • Territory of the Virgin Islands
    • Year
      • 1972 – 1990
        • 1972
        • 1973
        • 1975
        • 1987
        • 1989
        • 1990
      • 1991 – 2000
        • 1991
        • 1992
        • 1993
        • 1994
        • 1995
        • 1996
        • 1997
        • 1998
        • 1999
        • 2000
      • 2001 – 2010
        • 2001
        • 2002
        • 2003
        • 2004
        • 2005
        • 2006
        • 2007
        • 2008
        • 2009
        • 2010
      • 2011 – 2019
        • 2011
        • 2012
        • 2013
        • 2014
        • 2015
        • 2016
        • 2017
        • 2018
        • 2019
    • Judgment Focus
  • Sittings & Notices
    • Schedule of Sittings
    • Court of Appeal Sittings
    • Chamber Hearing (Appeals)
    • Case Management (Appeals)
    • High Court Sittings
    • Status Hearings
    • Special Sittings
    • Notices
  • Court Procedures & Rules
    • ECSC Court of Appeal Rules
    • ECSC (Sittings of the Court) Rules, 2014
    • Civil Procedure Rules [WEB]
    • ECSC Civil Procedure Rules
      • Civil Procedure Rules 2000 [Amendments to Nov 2015]
      • Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2014
      • ECSC Civil Procedure (Amendment) (No.2) Rules
      • Civil Procedure Rules 2000 [Amendments to May 2014]
      • Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2013
      • Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2011
    • ECSC Criminal Procedure Rules
      • Criminal Procedure Rules SI No. 22 of 2015
    • ECSC Sentencing Guidelines
    • Non Contentious Probate Rules and Administration of Estates
    • Family Proceedings Rules
    • More..
      • Election Petition Rules
      • Legal Profession Disciplinary Procedure Rules (St. Lucia)
      • Code Of Judicial Conduct
      • Court Forms
        • Introduction of E-Filing
        • BVI Commercial Division E-Filing
        • Court-Connected Mediation Practice Direction Forms
      • Court Proceedings Fees
      • SILK Application Procedure
      • Practice Directions
      • Practice Notes
      • Video Conferencing Protocols
  • News & Publications
    • ECSC Media Gallery
    • Annual Reports
    • Appointments
    • Press Releases
    • Papers & Presentation
      • Opening of the Law Year Addresses
    • Tributes
  • E-Litigation
    • E-Litigation Portal
    • E-Litigation Instructional Videos
    • ECSC E-Litigation Portal User Information
    • Electronic Litigation Filing and Service Procedure Rules
    • Notices of Commencement
    • E-Litigation Publications
  • J.E.I
    • JEI History
    • Structure of JEI
    • JEI Chairman
    • Mandate, Objectives, Standards
    • Programmes Archive
      • Conferences
      • Programmes & Projects
      • Symposiums
      • Training
      • Workshops
    • Upcoming Activities
more
    • About Us
    • Meet the Chief Justice
    • Civil Procedure Rules
    • Mediation
    • Careers
  • Contact
  • Saved for Later
 Home  E-Litigation Portal
  •  Court Procedures And Rules
    • Civil Procedure Rules
    • Court Forms
    • Election Petition Rules
    • Practice Directions
  •  Judgments
    •  All
    •  Court of Appeal
    •  High Court
    •  Digest of Decisions
  •  Sittings
    •  All
    •  Court of Appeal
    •  High Court
  • Sign In
    
    Minimize Search Window
    •       {{item.title}} Filter By Category {{SelectedFilters.length}}x Categories 
    •       {{item.title}} {{selectedCountries.length}}x Countries Country 
    •       {{item.title}} Filter By Year {{selectedOptions.length}}x Options 
    
    Sorry can't find what you're looking for try adjusting your search terms
    Appeal
    {{doc._source.post_title}}
    Page {{indexVM.page}} of {{indexVM.pageCount}}
    pdf
    Home » Judgments » High Court Judgments » In the Matter of the West Indies Associated States Supreme Court (Grenada) v In the Matter of the Council of Legal Education et al (Joseph Ewart Layne)

    In the Matter of the West Indies Associated States Supreme Court (Grenada) v In the Matter of the Council of Legal Education et al (Joseph Ewart Layne)

    1
    GRENADA
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GRENADA
    AND THE WEST INDIES ASSOCIATED STATES
    HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
    (CIVIL)
    CLAIM NO. GDAHCV 2013/0496
    IN THE MATTER OF THE WEST INDIES ASSOCIATED STATES SUPREME COURT
    (GRENADA) ACT CAP. 336 OF THE 2010 EDITION OF THE REVISED LAWS OF
    GRENADA
    AND
    IN THE MATTER OF THE COUNCIL OF LEGAL EDUCATION ACT CAP. 71 OF THE
    2010 EDITION OF THE REVISED LAWS OF GRENADA
    AND
    IN THE MATTER OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION ACT NO. 25 OF 2011
    AND
    IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY JOSEPH EWART LAYNE TO BE
    ADMITTED TO PRACTICE AS AN ATTORNEY-AT-LAW OF THE SUPREME COURT
    OF GRENADA AND THE WEST INDIES ASSOCIATED STATES
    Appearances:
    Mr. Ruggles Ferguson with Mr. Denis Lambert, Ms. Claudette Joseph, Ms.
    Cathisha Williams, Mr. Ian Sandy, Ms. Deborah St. Bernard, Mrs. Deborah
    Mitchell, Ms. Anyika Johnson, Mr. Francis Paul, Mr. Derrick Sylvester, Ms. Ayanna
    Nelson & Dr. Lawrence Joseph, Mr. M. Maduro, Ms. Lou-Ann Harford, Ms. J.
    McKenzie, Mr. Peter David, & Mr. Ashley Bernadine for Applicant
    Mr. Anselm Clouden and Mr. Tillman Thomas for Applicant absent

    Mr. John Carrington, Q.C. Amicus for the Court

    2013: December 20

    JUDGMENT
    2
    [1] PRICE FINDLAY, J.: This is an application brought by way of Fixed Date Claim
    Form seeking the admission of Joseph Ewart Layne to practice as an Attorney-at-
    Law in the State of Grenada.
    [2] The Applicant holds an LLB degree with Second Class Honours, an LLM with
    Merit from the University of London, and a degree in Accounting. While at the
    Hugh Wooding Law School he obtained a Certificate of Merit and was the most
    outstanding student at the Law School for the two-year period that he attended
    that institution. He was also the most outstanding Grenadian student for the
    corresponding period.
    [3] That the Applicant has the educational qualifications for admission to the Bar is not
    in question.
    [4] But it does not stop there. The Legal Profession Act S. 17 states:
    “17(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, a person who makes an application to
    the Supreme Court and satisfies the Supreme Court that he:
    (a) is of good character; and either
    (i) holds the qualifications prescribed by law; or
    (ii) is a person in respect of when an Order has been made
    under section 18.
    (b) has paid the prescribed fees under the provisions of the Stamp
    Act in respect of such admission;
    (c) has filed in the office of the Registrar an affidavit of his identity,
    and stating that he has paid the prescribed fee; and
    (d) has deposited with the Registrar, for inspection by the Court, his
    certificate with respect to his qualifications prescribed by law;
    Shall be eligible to be admitted by the Court to practice as an attorney-atlaw
    in Grenada.
    3
    (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of this Act or any other written law to the
    contrary, a national of Grenada who makes an application to the Court
    and satisfies the Court that:
    (a) he has the qualifications which would allow him to practice law in
    any country having a sufficiently analogous system of laws as
    Grenada: and
    (b) he has obtained a certificate from the head of chambers of an
    attorney-at-law of not less than ten years standing, practicing in
    Grenada to the effect that the national has undergone an
    attachment to those chambers for a continuous period of not less
    than six months relating to the practice of law:
    Is deemed to hold the qualifications prescribed by law and is entitled,
    subject to fulfilling the conditions under subsection (1), to be admitted by
    the Court to practice as an attorney-at-law in Grenada.
    (3) Before any person is admitted as an Attorney-at-law, the Registrar shall
    enquire whether the person has fulfilled all the conditions for admission
    laid down by law, and if the Registrar is satisfied that the person has done
    so, he shall report accordingly to the Supreme Court.
    (4) The Supreme Court may issue directions and conditions as to the manner
    in which the qualifications for admission to practice law may be proved,
    and may order any person to furnish such evidence as may be requested,
    for the purpose of this section or section 18.
    (5) Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, the Minister, where he considers
    it necessary or expedient, after consultation with the Chief Justice, may,
    by Order, provide that a Commonwealth citizen who has been admitted to
    practice in a Commonwealth country, is eligible to be admitted to practice
    law in Grenada on such terms and conditions, including but not limited to
    the duration of the admission, as the Minister may specify in the Order.”
    [5] The section clearly envisages that there are two limbs to the admission process:-
    1. The academic and professional education requirement, and
    4
    2. The requirement that the Applicant be of good character.
    [6] The legislation confers eligibility but not an entitlement to practice and the Court
    retains discretion as to whether a person ought to be admitted to practice,
    notwithstanding that he/she has met the statutory requirements.
    [7] I agree with the opinion set out by Amicus Attorney, John Carrington, Q.C. when
    he stated:
    “Like all judicial discretion, the discretion under the Act must be exercised
    in a manner that is consistent with the interest of justice, that is, by
    considering and giving proper weight to the relevant matters.”
    [8] It is to be noted that acceptance to the Law School does not grant any right or
    expectation to be admitted to the Bar.
    [9] The present Applicant has satisfied the other requirements set out in the section.
    [10] Therefore, the sole issue by this Court is, is the Applicant of good character. In
    other words, is he a fit and proper person to be admitted to the Bar.
    [11] Good moral character as defined by Black’s Law Dictionary is “a pre-requisite to
    admission to the practice of law, an absence of proven conduct or acts which have
    been historically considered as manifestation of moral turpitude.
    [12] Character has been defined in the same publication as:
    “The aggregate of moral qualities which belong to and distinguish an
    individual person, the general result of one’s distinguishing attributes.
    That moral pre-disposition or habit, or aggregate of ethical qualities which
    is believed to attach to a person on the strength of common opinion and
    report concerning him.”
    5
    [13] The Courts will deny an applicant admission to the Bar if the Court believes that
    said Applicant does not possess the requisite character to be so admitted.
    [14] The Court recognizes the importance of good character in future lawyers because
    ultimately lawyers are the guardians of our fundamental freedoms.
    [15] The US Supreme Court in Schware v Board of Examiners1, stated:
    “All interests of main that are comprised under the constitutional
    guarantees given to life, liberty and property are in the professional
    keeping of lawyers. From a profession charged with such responsibility,
    there must be exacted those qualities of truth speaking, of a high sense of
    honour, of granite discretion, of the strictest observance of fiduciary
    responsibility, that have throughout the cultures been compendiously
    described as moral character.”
    [16] Benjamin, J in Edward Alleyne2 stated:
    “… the Bar is no ordinary profession or occupation. The duties and
    privileges of advocacy are such that for their proper exercise and effective
    performance, Counsel must command the personal confidence of not only
    lay and professional clients but other members of the Bar and of judges.”
    [17] The Court has no rule automatically barring someone who has been convicted of
    an offence from the practice of law in this jurisdiction, but an applicant with the
    background of this Applicant must make an extraordinary showing of rehabilitation
    and present good moral character.
    [18] The test of character is a very high test, and has nothing whatsoever to do with
    punishment, reward or redemption. The test is whether there is a potential risk to
    the public or, more importantly, whether there will be damage to the reputation of
    the profession.
    1 353 US 232 (1957)
    2 1997 DCLR 340
    6
    [19] The Court is concerned with the maintenance of public confidence in the members
    of the profession.
    [20] Having reviewed the relevant authorities, I agree that the principles as set out by
    Amicus as to guide the Court in the proper exercise of its discretion in relation to
    the question whether the Applicant is of good character. They are as follows:
    – “There is no right to be admitted to practice law under the Legal
    Profession Act. The Act lays down only the threshold requirements for the
    exercise of the Court’s discretion.
    – The onus is on the Applicant to prove that he is of good character, which
    is one of the threshold requirements.
    – The test of what is good character is a “high test” but the standard of proof
    is probably no more than on a balance of probabilities, i.e. the civil
    standard. This means that there is no presumption that a person is of
    good character.
    – Good character has a subjective element, i.e. that the Applicant is a
    person of integrity, honesty and reliability. Evidence of past convictions
    for serious criminal offences are relevant to the proof of this element.
    – Good character also has an objective element, namely reputation, but the
    predominant concern is not the reputation of the applicant but of the
    profession, i.e. what would be the effect on the collective reputation of and
    public confidence in the legal profession if the Applicant were admitted to
    practice.
    – The nature of the crimes for which an Applicant has been convicted,
    although they took place almost 30 years ago, are relevant to the
    determination of both the subjective and objective elements of good
    character. The Court is entitled to take into account the gravity of the
    offences and the part played by the Applicant in the events.
    – While offences involving dishonesty are generally regarded as most
    relevant to the test of character, any conviction is relevant. In this regard,
    it becomes a qualitative issue whether the offence of murder, i.e.
    7
    deprivation of a person of the rest of his natural life, should be regarded
    as more, less or equally serious than the deprivation of a person of his
    material property.
    – As a refusal to admit is not punitive in nature, it does not amount to double
    punishment for a crime for which a sentence has been served.
    – The fact that a conviction took place several decades ago does not mean
    that it should be disregarded. However, the lapse of time and likelihood of
    recurrence may be relevant to the determination whether public
    confidence and the reputation of the profession will be affected by the
    admission.
    – The authorities show that the fact that the Applicant was acting under
    great stress at the time of commission of the crime in question does not
    excuse him.
    – The authorities further show that the relative youth of an Applicant at the
    time that the offences were committed does not excuse him. It is probably
    relevant in this case that despite his relative youth, the Applicant held a
    position of authority at the relevant time. It would be relevant to his
    character if the Court were to hold a view that this position was abused.
    – The Applicant’s undoubted achievements since his conviction can
    alternatively be regarded as evidence of rehabilitation or cast doubt on his
    character in that as a highly intelligent person, he should have been in a
    better position to evaluate the wrongfulness of his conduct at the relevant
    time.
    – Recommendations, glowing tributes (including academic accolades) and
    attempts to re-establish himself in society re all relevant considerations
    but will carry little weight in the Court’s considerations if the Court is of the
    view that the reputation of the profession as a whole would be adversely
    affected by the admission of the Applicant. The fortunes of an Applicant
    must always give way to the need to maintain the collective reputation of
    the profession.
    8
    – If the Court believes that it is probable that public confidence in and the
    reputation of the profession as a whole are likely to be affected by the
    admission, the Court has to determine the extent to which these are likely
    to be affected and weigh the personal factors in relation to the Applicant in
    this context. The more probable that public confidence and reputation of
    the profession are likely to be gravely affected, the less weight should be
    given to the Applicant’s evidence of rehabilitation and other personal
    factors.”
    This list is not exhaustive and all these factors must be looked at and taken into
    account.
    [21] I take note of the observations of the Applicant as stated in the skeleton
    arguments of Counsel. They are as follows:
    “16(i) There is no issue of honesty and trustworthiness and integrity. The
    offences in question do not touch on these.
    (ii) The Applicant made full disclosure of the offences when he applied to the
    CLE for admission to its two (2) year programme.
    (iii) The Applicant has disclosed his record to the court as part of his
    application.
    (iv) The offences were thirty (30) years ago.
    (v) The offences occurred in exceptional political circumstances.
    (vi) The offences were committed when the Applicant was a relative youth,
    carried disproportionate burden of responsibility in very difficult
    circumstances.
    (vii) Their likelihood of reoccurrence is extremely remote.
    (viii) The Applicant did not personally kill anyone.
    (ix) The evidence of rehabilitation since the offences is overwhelming.
    (x) The conclusion that the defect which resulted in the commission of the
    offences of 30 years ago does not play any role in the life of the Applicant
    is justified when the totality of the circumstances, including the evidence of
    rehabilitation and the passage of 30 years are considered.
    9
    (xi) The application is uncontroverted, and in particular, by the Attorney
    General and the Grenada Bar Association.
    [22] There is no right to Admission to the Bar; it is for the Applicant to satisfy and
    discharge the burden of the test of character.
    [23] While I commend this Applicant for the efforts that he has made to rehabilitate
    himself in the some thirty years since the convictions for murder, I have to
    consider the preservation of the integrity of this profession.
    [24] The Court has to balance the previous misconduct as opposed to the evidence of
    rehabilitation.
    [25] Deborah Rhode wrote in the Yale Law Journal 19853 that:
    “In the United States the traditional view is that certain illegal activity,
    regardless of the likelihood that it would be repeated in a lawyer/client
    situation, shows an attitude towards the law that cannot be accepted by its
    practitioners. It goes further — to hold otherwise would demean the
    profession’s reputation and reduce the character requirements to a
    meaningless pretence.”
    [26] In this matter the Court commends the efforts of the Applicant, his positive
    contributions while in prison to educate and inform his fellow inmates as well as
    his other contribution to prison life. The Court also commends his personal
    academic achievements.
    [27] While rehabilitation is important, a show of rehabilitation in the face of past serious
    misconduct may be impossible to make.
    3 Deborah C Rhode, Moral Character as a Professional Credential 94 Yale LJ – 491 at 537
    10
    [28] In Re Gossage4 it is stated:
    “… where serious or criminal conduct is involved, positive references
    about the applicant’s moral character are more difficult to draw, and
    negative character inferences are stronger and more reasonable.”
    [29] The Applicant’s crimes here have been described as acts committed in political
    turmoil and in exceptional/political circumstances, and in the context of the Cold
    War.
    [30] But the Applicant was 25 years old at the time and a Lieutenant Colonel in the
    Army. In fact, he was in charge of the day-to-day operations of the Army. This
    shows that he had a level of maturity and had even at that age displayed
    leadership qualities that lent themselves to him being given that heavy mantle of
    leadership, Commander of Armed Forces of Grenada.
    [31] To give the orders which he and others gave to “liquidate them”, and in
    circumstances in which they were given, a position away from the actual scene
    itself, portrays a lack of moral judgment on the part of the Applicant.
    [32] The onerous burden placed on this Applicant to show his suitability for the Bar is
    commensurate with the gravity of the crime for which he was convicted.
    [33] The crime of murder is the most serious known to the criminal law. It may attract
    the harshest penalty known to law – death. The Applicant here was convicted of
    ten counts of murder.
    [34] In the United States in Re Wright5, the Court declined admission for an Applicant
    convicted of second degree murder “despite his perseverance and despite
    apparently successful efforts at rehabilitation.”
    4 99 Ca. Rptr. 2d
    5 Re Wright 102 Wash. 2d 855, 690 P. 2d 1134
    11
    [35] The United States Courts in Re Wright & Gossage were not swayed even though
    the profession had no objection to the admission of these applicants.
    [36] In Re Hamm6, a United States case out of Arizona, the Applicant claimed to have
    lived an exemplary life and viewed his admission to the Bar as part of his “path to
    redemption” and a way to pay “a debt of honour”.
    [37] The Court in that case found that the point of admission to the Bar is not to reward
    a person for behaving and living like the vast majority of the population in civil
    society.
    [38] The point of admission is to select the persons who will handle the law with
    honesty and with competence, but also not to diminish the role and reputation of
    the legal profession.
    [39] The test which the Court has to apply is whether there is a potential risk to the
    public or, more importantly, whether there will be damage to the profession’s
    reputation.
    [40] The public must have confidence in the Bar, as admitting an Applicant to practice
    sends the message that the Applicant is worthy of the public trust.
    [41] “Lawyers play a critical role in sustaining the rule of law and thus it is necessary
    that the legal profession maintain its unique ability to do so by earning the respect
    and confidence of society.” In re Rowe7.
    6 In re Hamm, 123 P. 3d 652, 655 (Ariz. 2005)
    7 80 Ny 2d at 340, 640 Ne 2d at 730
    12
    [42] In the Hamm case, like here, some 30 years had elapsed between the offence in
    1974 and the application for admission to the Arizona Bar in 2004, and that
    application was refused even though he had tried to lead an exemplary life since
    the time of the offence.
    [43] Had this Applicant committed these acts while a practicing attorney, this Court has
    no doubt that he would have been disbarred. Disbarment has occurred for less
    egregious conduct.
    [44] To allow this Applicant to be admitted would send an inconsistent message to
    members of the public and to the profession as a whole.
    [45] “The reputation of this profession is more important than the fortunes of any
    individual member.” Burgham MR. Bolton v Law Society8.
    [46] The Applicant here is a man who has accomplished much. But having reviewed
    the evidence and taking into account all the relevant considerations, and the
    authorities in England, the United States, the OECS and other jurisdictions, I am
    constrained to refuse this application for admission.
    Margaret A. Price Findlay
    High Court Judge
    8 1993 EWCA Civ. 32

    /matter-west-indies-associated-states-supreme-court-grenada-v-matter-council-legal-education-et-al-joseph-ewart-layne/
     Prev
    In the Matter of The Estate of John Peter Richardson and In the Matter of the Letters of Administration and Probate Act Rsa C L45
    Next 
    Idabelle Meade v Wilford Meade
    Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court

    2nd Floor Heraldine Rock Building
    Waterfront
    P.O. Box 1093
    Castries
    Saint Lucia
    T: +1 758 457 3600
    E: offices@eccourts.org

    • About Us
      • Court Overview
      • Career Opportunities
      • Directory
      • Privacy Policy
    • Judgments
      • Court Of Appeal
      • High Court
    • Sittings
      • Chamber Hearing
      • Court of Appeal
      • High Court
    • News & Updates
      • Appointments
      • Press Releases
    • Civil Procedure Rules
      • Court Forms
      • Practice Directions
    © 2023 Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court. All Rights Reserved

    Submit your email address and name to subscribe for email notifcations.

    [email-subscribers-advanced-form id="1"]
    Bookmark
    Remove Item
    Sign in to continue
    or

    Bookmarked Items
    •  Home
    • Judgments
    • Sittings
    •  News
    •  more