LEGAL CHAOS IN GRENADA

By Leroy Noel

St. George’s, Grenada: Unprecedented in the history of the Caribbean Island of Grenada over 90 percent of its lawyers are protesting against Government’s choice as Attorney General.

The lawyers are now in their third week of protest refusing to attend courts demanding that Government withdraws its choice of Jamaican born Hugh Wildman as Attorney General. A call has been made to the civil society to support the lawyers struggle and according to a legal source a march in the Capital St. George is planned for Monday when the trade unions and other mass organizations are expected to join.

On Wednesday the majority of the Island’s lawyers held a peaceful march around the capital calling on the Government to desist from appointing Mr Wildman as Attorney General. President of the Grenada Bar Association Ruggles Ferguson says his organization unanimously rejects the idea of Mr. Wildman being Attorney-General of Grenada. “It is inconceivable therefore for him to lead the Bar. The idea of Mr. Wildman speaking on the Bar’s behalf during ceremonial court sittings and the like is manifestly ludicrous given the documented instances of his open hostilities to and contempt for the Bar.

With Mr. Wildman as Attorney General the country can only expect more misconduct, more bad advice and a marked deterioration in the relationship between judges and the Bar.” In addressing the nation on why the bar took action Mr Ferguson said, “The basis of the Bar’s objection lay in the consistently unprofessional, unbecoming and outrageous conduct of Mr. Wildman since his first contact with the courts of Grenada in 1994: wantonly attacking Judges and Lawyers showing utter disrespect for the court; defying court orders; abusing the office of Director of Public Prosecutions which he once held; improperly seeking to influence jurors in the performance of their duties; having inappropriate and improper contact with Jurors; acting without due regard for the law and legal process; and generally behaving in a manner not befitting of an Attorney-at-Law and officer of the court.”

The Grenada Bar Association also appealed to the to the Judicial and Legal Services Commission not to accept the recommendation of the Government of Grenada to appoint someone to act as Attorney-General and to lead the Bar who does not enjoy the support or command the respect of the Bar. In a letter to the Judicial and Legal Affairs Committee Mr Ferguson stated, “We beseech your good selves not to allow the esteemed office of Attorney-General to fall into disrepute by appointing Mr. Wildman to that office, giving his past and continuing reprehensible conduct. We trust that our request will be given due consideration and that the recommendation to appoint him will be duly rejected.”

The result of Mr. Wildman’s failure to properly represent the State of Grenada in a very important case (Dipcon case) is that judgment was secured and not discharged or reduced and the Government is left to pay damages at EC$11,202,632.00, plus interest continuing from the date of the judgment and legal costs.

In addition, the Privy Council commenting on Wildman’s conduct as the legal representative of the Government of Grenada stated that “In truth the Government were playing fast and loose with the Court and its procedures …” “Time and again the Government sought to frustrate the progress of these proceedings.”

The Privy Council, the highest court of Grenada, has said in effect that as a result of Mr. Wildman’s conduct of the case, the Government of Grenada does not respect and obey its own courts and thus its own laws and the Government is in essence thumbing its nose at its own courts.

It is reported in the West Indian report 1996 that Mr. Wildman displayed improper and outrageous conduct as Counsel for the State of Jamaica making frequent, improper and unfounded allegations against Defense Counsel in the presence of Judge and jury. His conduct before the judge and jury was severely criticized by the Court of Appeal of Jamaica as being “outrageous” and “reprehensible.” The Court of Appeal of Jamaica commented, “Such improper conduct should not have been allowed to occur.” Partly as a result of Mr. Wildman’s improper and outrageous conduct, the Court of Appeal overturned the conviction and set free the murder accused.

Journalist Stanley Charles charged with sedition wrote to the Chief Justice complaining about Mr Wildman’s behaviour. He stated “I beg of you to do what you deem appropriate to encourage the DPP, Mr. Wildman, to conduct himself in accordance with well-established norms reserved for places where the sanctity of Justice is secured and the purity of law is upheld. I witness further, an exchange in court which left me bewildered.

My counsel submitted to the court, that a document, which formed part of the records of the court, was not before the court, and should be, if my case is to be executed… On 7th June 2001, Mr. Wildman sued a resident, sitting Senior High Court Judge, Mr. Justice Brian Alleyne, Senior Counsel, alleging bias or a real danger of bias and sought a declaration that Justice Alleyne should not be a judge in ANY matter in which Mr. Wildman appeared as attorney at law. On 17th July and on 31st July 2001, the High Court of Grenada totally dismissed Mr. Wildman’s case against Justice Alleyne and said that the case was “wholly misconceived, frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of the process of the Court.” Mr. Wildman was at the time acting as Special Prosecutor for the State of Grenada, a position which is not known to the Constitution of Grenada and a post which essentially undermines the position of the Director of Public Prosecutions, which is a constitutionally created post.

As Special Prosecutor Mr. Wildman has prosecuted several matters for the State, which would normally have been led by the DPP together with Crown Counsel in the Ministry of Legal Affairs. Mr. Wildman was first the Director of Public Prosecution in Grenada until 1995 when he resigned amidst protest from the Bar in Grenada over his conduct including public attacks on lawyers and judges alike. He returned to Grenada for a second stint as DPP in 1999 and was given short-term appointments, which were extended from time to time. After one such appointment expired in July 2000, Mr. Wildman well knowing that he had no authority to continue to act as DPP signed several depositions for persons to be committed to trial. When one such trial was thrown out for that reason, Mr. Wildman appealed to the Court of Appeal and there tried to justify his actions prompting then Justice of Appeal Singh to comment that at the time Mr. Wildman signed the depositions, he was “not even a bailiff” far less the DPP. Naturally his appeal was dismissed.

Several trials which commenced with the depositions signed by Mr. Wildman had to be quashed and papers refiled all at further expense to the State. The Grenada Government however after entertaining a delegation from the Bar association said that it has a right to appoint who ever it sees fit and would not allow itself to be dictated to.