You are not logged in.

Announcement

Welcome to the one and only Spiceislander Talkshop.

#11 Mar 19, 2019 7:35 pm

gripe
Active

Re: Privy Council Rules Against Ewart "Headache" Layne

RD, one measure of the soundness of legal opinions, above and beyond making sense, is that they must give sound guidance for future, similar cases on which the court would be made to render a decision. So, clarity, and full disclosure in a sense, is absolutely needed.

Therefore, by treating Ewart clearly differently from their decision regarding Selwyn, the PC should have explained that distinction in addition to the U.S. and other countries' cases that the PC considered. The references to Selwyn's case, as far as my quick perusal of the decision shows, appear only at § 18 and § 28. But, those references did not distinguish Selwyn's case from Ewart's. That is such a cop-out since it makes sense that the PC should have given better treatment to the Selwyn-Ewart circumstances since they are from the same country and their murder convictions stemmed from the same events. Both Selwyn and Ewart, I venture, may very well enjoy the same degree of disdain and admiration at home. It is thus crazy to see how the decisions on their cases, by the PC, could be so different: granting Selwyn the privilege to practice law but denying Ewart that same privilege.

Also, apart from the Selwyn-Ewart crazy outcomes, the PC proved disingenuous with their Ewart decision in two significant ways:

1. The PC refused "to admit fresh evidence under Ladd v Marshall[1954] 1 WLR 1489 about the high esteem in which the  appellant  is  held  by  distinguished  members  of  the  Grenadian  community.  These include a former Deputy Commissioner of Police." PC Decision at § 30.

2. The PC refused to give proper credit to the following:

"Mr  Fitzgerald  also  relies  on  the  fact  that  there  was  no  opposition  to his application for admission from the Grenadian Bar. He submits that there is therefore no risk to the public in terms of damage to the reputation to the profession. He urges the Board  to  adopt  the  formulation  of  the  test  as  set  out  by  Mitting  J  in Shuttari  v  Law Society [2007] EWHC 1484, § 18 as being whether failure to strike off the name of the solicitor would damage the reputation of the profession." PC decision at § 31.

(Having read those sections of the PC's decision, my earlier concern that Ewart's team needed to have submitted statements to preempt and make MOOT the idea that he would damage the profession, was in fact properly addressed by Ewart's attorneys.)

The foregoing arguments prove that the PC had their position well set even though Ewart's attorneys did their best to achieve a favourable result for him. Really, how could Ewart and his attorneys overcome the very basis on which the PC hung their hat to deny Ewart -- their disingenuous "damage" to the profession argument -- when the PC deliberately refused to accept evidence to counter that position?

As we all know, a half FULL glass could be said, by some, to be half EMPTY. Perspectives and the power to twist circumstances can shape our futures, our lives.

Offline

#12 Mar 19, 2019 9:12 pm

Expat
Active

Re: Privy Council Rules Against Ewart "Headache" Layne

Slice wrote:

So what is he suppose to do? I know Headache, I know the man, and ah doh believe he is ah threat to society, and should be allowed to practice law

You seem to be pretty consistent, wasn't it a pedophile that you had no problem with because he was a nice guy too.

Offline

#13 Mar 19, 2019 10:15 pm

Real Distwalker
Active

Re: Privy Council Rules Against Ewart "Headache" Layne

Gripe I don't pretend that anything I have posted here is based on the law.  I am just responding to Slice and giving the opinion that if Ewart is a good guy now, that wasn't the case during the Revo and the immediate aftermath.  He was involved in what is pretty much universally agreed to be the worst excesses of the Revo years.

Offline

#14 Mar 19, 2019 11:03 pm

gripe
Active

Re: Privy Council Rules Against Ewart "Headache" Layne

RD, I understand your position.

My gripe, literally, is with the flawed, in my assessment, PC decision.

Offline

#15 Mar 20, 2019 12:12 am

New Historian
Active

Re: Privy Council Rules Against Ewart "Headache" Layne

gripe wrote:

RD, I understand your position.

My gripe, literally, is with the flawed, in my assessment, PC decision.

It seems that the PC's "formal" justification for their ruling masked a deeper issue - which is anyone's guess. What do you think would be the view of the CCJ?

Offline

#16 Mar 20, 2019 3:26 am

Calypso
Active

Re: Privy Council Rules Against Ewart "Headache" Layne

gripe wrote:

Unfortunately for Ewart, his quest to be called to the Bar at home was denied by the Privy Council (PC) in their decision issued today, found here: https://www.jcpc.uk/cases/jcpc-2017-0017.html

(You may review the discussion on Ewart's PC hearing last year on this forum: http://spiceislandertalkshop.com/oldtal … hp?id=2424 )

Here are the concluding arguments from the PC:

"For the reasons given above, the Board humbly advises Her Majesty that this appeal should be dismissed. The fact that Mr Layne is now a man of good standing in the community is certainly a necessary requirement for the good character condition for admission to the Bar of Grenada to be satisfied, but it is not in itself enough. Public confidence in the profession had also to be considered. The judge’s assessment was that there was sufficient risk that it would be damaged by acceding to Mr Layne’s application and so that facet of the good character condition was not met. The Board concludes that there was no reviewable error in her decision on this matter."

Here are a few comments from me:

Interestingly, similar cases, at least in the U.S., give great, decisive weight to the issue of whether the applicant is of good moral character. In fact, in the U.S., the applicant would almost certainly be admitted to the Bar if he/she satisfies that requirement. In Ewart's case, however, despite the fact that the PC found the equivalent of "good moral character" in Ewart -- by stating that he has "good standing in the community" -- they instead threw that to the side and gave more weight to the argument/requirement that public confidence in the profession would be damaged by admitting Ewart to the Bar.

I disagree with the PC's decision for a host of reasons especially its refusal to see that it is contradictory to say, on the one hand, that a person, Ewart, has "good standing in the community" but, on the other hand, that the person, Ewart, would hurt the legal profession if he is allowed to be called to the Bar. Hogwash and then some . . .



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gzYrBJUNRI

This man shouldn't have been released.

Offline

#17 Mar 20, 2019 8:41 am

gripe
Active

Re: Privy Council Rules Against Ewart "Headache" Layne

Calypso, your suggestion takes us way back and negates the fact that all of the "Grenada 17" were released. Your comment also endorsed singular punishment for Ewart.

I disagree with your positions as much as I disagree with the PC's decision.

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB