PUBLIC RECORD
OFFICE
Reference :-
TLC.O. 885
יייייייי
11 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
2
proclaimed successively two days of meeting, and that Mr. Woodcock, in the first instance, professed his readiness to attend the proposed court, if his health should permit, but subsequently concurred in an objection raised by Mr. Gresham who alleged that the clause above cited from the St. Lucia Ordinance (56) contemplated only two sessions in each year, and that it was not competent to the Governor to order, or to The Governor's proclamations thus remained the judges to hold, a supplemental court without effect, and of the appeal cases pending in St. Lucia, four would accordingly wait for the second sessions of this year; two being dealt with in the manner explained in the enclosure of Mr. Walker's Despatch of the 8th of September; that
It would seem from the passages quoted from Mr. Woodcock's letter that this inconvenience was deliberately inflicted on the suitors with the object of asserting the dignity of the judges, that Mr. Woodcock at least would not hesitate to resort to a similar proceeding on any future occasion of the same kind, and that he does not conceive that there is any authority competent to prevent this; Sir Frederic Rogers also stated that it would appear from Mr. Woodcock's second letter that even if the Court of Appeal had decided that the Governor had power to summon more than two courts in each year, and much more in the absence of any decision, Mr. Woodcock would consider himself at liberty to act on a contrary opinion by refusing to attend any such court.
And that it appeared to your Lordship that although the Secretary of State should abstain from even the appearance of controlling the opinions of a judge in any case which comes judicially before him, yet it is incumbent on the Crown to use all the authority which it possesses in order to compel judges to perform their duties, and to protect suitors against any refusal or delay of justice on insufficient grounds.
Your Lordship therefore desired Sir Frederic Rogers to request our advice, first as to the propriety of the conduct alleged or admitted to have been pursued by them; and secondly, by what method, if any, that conduct may be most appropriately inquired into, and if improper, be most effectually repressed.
Sir Frederic Rogers also said that it might be proper to state that Messrs. Wood- cock and Gresham hold their respective offices as Chief Justices of Tobago and Grenada during Her Majesty's pleasure under Colonial Letters Patent issued in pursuance of a warrant under the Royal Sign Manual and Signet. To those offices (as had been already mentioned) the office of judge in the Appeal Court is attached by local ordinance and' order in council, and that it was apprehended that in strict law a Colonial judge holding during pleasure is legally removable in several ways.
1. His appointment may be cancelled at the will of Her Majesty signified by instru- ments of the same authority as those by which he was appointed, and this with or without the cause assigned and without appeal.
2. He may be removed by the officer administering the government with the advice of his executive or privy council under the Act 22 Geo. 3. c. 78. subject to an appeal to the Judicial Committee.
3. He may be suspended by the officer administering the government under autho- rity of his commission, and with the formalities prescribed by his instructions (of which copies are annexed) and this suspension may either be confirmed or disallowed by Her Majesty on the advice of the Secretary of State without the advice of the Judicial Committee, or (probably) may be referred to that court acting in a judicial or quasi judicial character.
4. The Judicial Committee have in some instances taken into consideration judicially, in the first instance, an address from a local legislature praying for the removal of a judge.
Sir Frederic Rogers was also pleased to say that as discussions had from time to time been raised respecting the jurisdiction properly exercised in these matters by the Judicial Committee, copies were annexed of a Parliamentary paper containing (pp. 68, 69, 70, and 71) an opinion of the then Law Officers of the Crown, and a Despatch of the Duke of Newcastle relating to the proposed removal of a South Australian judge, Mr. Boothby (who, however, held his office during good behaviour) and of a letter addressed, semi-officially, to the Colonial Office on that occasion by the Registrar of the Judicial Committee.
That it might be difficult for the local governments to exercise any authority in the matter, for the misconduct charged against the judges was committed by them in St. Lucia as judges of the Court of Appeal, while the only punishment for that misconduct is dismissal from the Chief Justiceships of Grenada and Tobago. The Government of St. Lucis, therefore, is the only Government which can properly take
3
cognizance of the offence, while the Governments of Tobago and Grenada are alone competent to inflict punishment. It would therefore appear almost unavoidable that action should be taken the Home Government in the first instance and not merely by way of confirmation or appeal.
That it would also be observed that although the facts would seem to be for the most part clearly disclosed in the accompanying papers Messrs. Gresham and Woodcock have not yet been called upon to defend themselves against any specific charge preferred as a ground of censure.
In conclusion, Sir Frederic Rogers further stated that an inquiry had been ordered into the charge of inebriety which had been brought against Mr. Atthill. In obedience to your Lordship's commands, we have the honour to
Report
That from the papers submitted to us it would appear that Chief Justices Woodcock and Gresham adjourned the court after they were informed that Chief Justice Atthill's boat was in sight; if upon inquiry, that should appear to be the case, we think their conduct in adjourning the court was very reprehensible.
We think it was also very unbecoming in them to decline to assemble in pursuance of the Governor's proclamation; if they had met, it is possible that after discussion and upon consideration the court might have come to the conclusion that they were properly convened, and at all events it was a question for the consideration of the
court.
We think that upon the present statements, and assuming them to be correct, your Lordship would be fully warranted in expressing strongly your Lordship's disapproval of the conduct of Messrs. Woodcock and Gresham.
We do not think it is a case calling for the dismissal of the gentlemen in question,' unless they should persist in a repetition of the course which they have adopted.
We think that any perseverance in the conduct to which we have referred would be a ground for dismissal of the judge chargeable with it, and we think that any pro- ceedings for this purpose should originate with the Home Government as suggested in the letter of Sir Frederic Rogers after opportunity given to the party charged to make such statement as he may desire on the subject.
The Right Hon. the Earl of Carnarvon,
&c. &c.
&c.
We have, &c. (Signed)
H. M. CAIRNS.
WM. BOVILL.