Nobility of Profession – Rascality in Professionals

By Rawlston Pompey

Not only are ‘Fraudulent Acts’ being perpetrated every day, but also everywhere. In the ‘Legal Profession’ to Banking Institutions.’

When this news portal reported that the ‘FBI and the ‘US Securities Exchange Commission (SEC)’ were conducting ‘Cross-Border Investigations’ into financial institutions from the ‘USA to the Bahamas to Antigua and Barbuda,’ know some currency was suspected to have slipped out of some ‘Bank’s Vault’ [November22, 2022].

When people sought to divorce themselves from acts bordering activities often under the scrutiny of the ‘ONDCP,’ know that it would have been enough to pay more this ‘Month’s Salary.’

NOBLEST OF PROFESSIONS
None may deny that the ‘Legal Profession’ has not only been considered prestigious, but also ranked as among the ‘Noblest of Professions.’ The majority of practitioners are legal scholars of professional ethics and integrity. These have been the ones that were often seen as exhibiting exemplary conduct. They are not only highly reputable and respectable, but also in high demand.

Five days a week some ‘Attorneys-at-Law’ were to be seen immaculately attired in ‘Jackets
and Ties.’

They stood before ‘Magistrates sitting on ‘Benches,’ performing multiple Magisterial
Roles, either; (a) ‘Conducting Summary trials; or (b) Adjudicating Civil proceedings; or (c)
Holding Committal proceedings for Criminal jurisdiction.’

PERSPECTIVE

This commentary is neither intended to incur the ‘Wrath of the Bar Council,’ nor concerned
with ‘Banking Institutions’ or ‘Attorneys-at-Law’ that appear not to have exhibited vulture-
like instincts.

Instead, its intention is to discourage those with such instincts. Moreover, it is
intended to bring awareness to the citizenry, of an apparent unwholesome legal practice. Such practice, by a very small minority, seems not to be consistent with provisions contained in the ‘Legal Profession Act (LPA)’ [No.22 of 2008].

It shall, therefore, bring enlightenment to those that have been ‘Intellectually’ deceived and victimized, and/or financially-deprived.’

It also looks at specific ‘Rules’ governing ‘Professional Misconduct’ and attendant consequences. It further looks at the experiences of the now ‘Vacation-Leaved,’ Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Anthony Armstrong.’

KLEPTOMANIAC PROPENSITIES

None shall practice ‘Criminal Law’ without the capacity of legal understanding of ‘Mischiefs
Aimed by Parliament.’ Conversely, none shall be elected to the ‘Presidency’ of ‘Bar
Associations’ that is likely to adopt the ‘Dog and Cat Idiom.’

This idiom says that the ‘Dog licks him that it likes,’ while the Cat scratches him that it dislikes.’ In the ‘Legal Profession Act,’ that so ‘Aimed,’ could easily be explained by the ‘Law-Degreed,’ but not yet ‘Bar- Called’ to practice as an Attorney, ‘Maria Bird-Browne MP’ [ABS TV/Radio: July 10, 2019.’

She, without a ‘Shadow of Doubt,’ would explain that ‘Clients and Litigants’ of whatever social status and financial standing, shall be protected from ‘Attorneys-at-law’ with
‘Kleptomaniac Propensities.’

PROFESSIONAL HONESTY
That which seems not only to be at variance with ‘Professional Honesty,’ but also with ‘Ethics and integrity,’ have been allegations of rampant ‘Fleecing of Clients/Litigants.’ Consequently, it is intended to enlighten victims and potential of the reported ignoble practice.

Long before the present generation of ‘Attorneys-at-Law,’ Parliament had long anticipated that unscrupulous and depraved legal practitioners may seek to ‘Deceive and Defraud’ unsuspecting clients and itigants.

Consequently, in order protect those of inferior intellect, the ‘Legal Profession Act
(LPA),’ was enacted.

BEST PROFESSIONBAL PRACTICE

More specifically, the ‘Act,’ purposefully crafted is intended to guide ‘Best Professional
Practice’ among legal practitioner. The likely advantages are; (i) Reposing confidence by
Clients/litigants and members of the wider society; (ii) ‘Embracing the legal practice of
scrupulous Attorneys-at-law; (iii) The Magistracy; (iv) The Judiciary; and most importantly (v) Strengthen belief in the administration and dispensation of Justice; and (d)
Engender respect for the ‘Rule of Law.’

NOBILITY FROM RASCALITY

From the author’s perspective, as many ‘Attorneys-at-law’ may have been starved of
knowledge of the ‘Legal Profession Act,’ it was considered prudent to start with the
‘Governing Rules.’ It specifically looks at ‘Non-conformity by the ‘Disciplinary Committee of
the ‘Rule’ that speaks to making public a pronouncement on ‘Disciplinary Findings’ [Section
11: LPA: No.22 of 2008].

To all intents and purposes, the ‘Rules,’ as contained in the ‘Act’ are intended; (i) ‘To separate ‘Nobility from Rascality: (ii) To guide the conduct of all Attorneys in the most professional practice: (iii) Ensuring Attorneys do not become ‘Rascals;’ and most importantly, (iv) To offer clients and/or litigants legal protection from ‘Abuse of Intellectual Fleecing.’

RAMPANCY OF RASCALITY
The ‘Rampancy of Rascality and ‘Professional Misconduct’ among a small minority of the
membership of the ‘Legal Profession,’ have been of grave concern to a great many people
within the ‘Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS).

Research has shown that the ‘Four Most Prevalent Complaints’ have been; (i) ‘Attorneys receiving consultation fees, and not discharging obligations to ‘Consulted Clients/Litigants: (ii) Attorneys retained for trial/hearing have not attended Court, neither with promptitude, nor punctuality; (iii) Attorneys seizing and withholding ‘Litigious Files’ for dissatisfied Clients/Litigants; and (iv) Attorneys with increasing frequency were alleged to have fingered Client’s money.’ It has been the latter that has seen ‘Attorneys in the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) jurisdictions of; (i) ‘Barbados; and Jamaica’ been frequently made amenable to law.

CRIES OF CLIENTS/LITIGANTS

Though some ‘Riff-Raffs’ will have been disciplinarily sanctioned, fleecing was said to have
continued without abatement. Some have left many clients and litigants in ‘Monetary
Purgatory.’

That which all a sundry shall know, is that the ’Legal Profession Act’ [Antigua
and Barbuda], anticipates that ‘Disciplinary Actions’ shall be instituted against the
indiscipline.

It shall be seen when Attorneys holding on to ‘Clients/Litigants Files or
Documents,’ they would have committed a ‘Sanctionable Breach’ of the very ‘Rule’ that
governs their ‘Professional Conduct.’

A ‘Magistrate’ in mixed-up mood and attitude, could numerically increase the population at the penal institution. These have not only been the ‘Cries of Clients/Litigants.’

TENETS OF PROFESSIONALISM
Some ‘OECS Bar Associations’ may benefit from the ‘Public Pronouncement’ by the
‘General Legal Council (GLC) [Jamaica].’ When the ‘Disciplinary Findings’ by that body
was publicly pronounced and published at its website, it had conformed with the requirements of ‘Jamaican Law.’ This not only speaks to the ‘Tenets of Professionalism,’ but also to; (I) ‘Due process of law; (ii) Public liability: (iii) Accountability; and (iv) Transparency.’

This appears to have starkly contrasted the apparent ‘non-conformist behavior’ of the ‘Antigua and Barbuda Bar Association (ABBA).’ Instructively, within the umbrella body is a structured administrative body called; (a) ‘The Bar Council; and (b) A Disciplinary Committee’

[Section 3: Legal Profession Act: No. 22of 2008].

DISCIPLINARY FINDINGS

A particular ‘Disciplinary Rule,’ purposefully inserted in the ‘Legal Profession Act,’ and given
acute legislative consideration, appeared not to have been applied. Research has been
unsuccessful in showing that the ‘Bar Council and Disciplinary Committee’ has ever conform
to the ‘Rule’ on ‘making public ‘Disciplinary Findings.’

This shall not only be done as the ‘Rule’ dictates, but also as public interest demands. Such appeared to have been among the ‘Considerations of Parliament.’ Thus, a ‘Bar Council President’ that harbors a contrary view, may run the risk of the ‘Chief Justice of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (ECSC)’ and the ‘Attorney General’ and general public saying;

‘The President appeared not sufficiently informed or au fait with the ‘Disciplinary Rules.’

INTEREST AND CURIOSITY

Whatever the ‘Disciplinary Findings’ may be, the ‘Rule’ dictates that ‘Public Pronouncements’ ‘shall be made after ‘an application for disciplinary hearing’ against a duly
cited, summoned and heard offending ‘Attorney-at-law.’ It is universally known that the public often have vested or keen interest in ‘Attorney Misconduct,’ whether or not alleged or
perceived.

Therefore, in satisfying both ‘Interest and Curiosity,’ at the conclusion of the trial, the verdict of the jury- ‘Convicted and Sentenced’ or ‘Acquitted and Discharged,’ are made public. The Jurisdictions of ‘Jamaica and Barbuda’ make for; (a) ‘Liability: (b)
Transparency: and (c) Accountability.’

BUCKLED AND DELIVERED

Supporting reports of ‘File Seizures,’ apart from ‘Clients/Litigants, ‘Chief Magistrate Joanne
Walsh,’ may lend attestation.

When a male Defendant appeared before the Court of; (a) ‘Summary: (b) Civil; and (c) Criminal Jurisdictions,’ he invited the ‘Court’s intervention in recovering ‘Documents’ said to have been withheld by a ‘Money- Hawk.’

The accompanying presence of a ‘Court Orderly’ with the ‘Defendant, saw the practicing attorney, ‘Buckled and Delivered’ the Documents. That which ‘Attorneys-at-Law’ continue to initiated for ‘Clients/Litigants,’ the said ‘Legal Profession Act’ provides ‘Litigious Recourse’ to
themselves.

The ‘Act’ not only states that; ‘An Attorney is entitled to practice law, but also
to sue and recover ‘Fees’ for services rendered’ [Section 20: LPA: No. 22 of 2008].

CREATIVELY ACQUISITIVE

Even amidst non-refutable ‘Street Whispers,’ there have never been ‘Public Pronouncements’ that corrective measures have been taken for any alleged ‘Professional Misconduct.’

In recent times, this is the small minority have given their ‘Clients and Litigants,’ reasons to believe they are as exploitive as they have been ‘Creatively Acquisitive.’ This minority group, has given the clearest indications that they are in it for ‘Wealth Acquisition.’ Many may not have been when Prime Minister Gaston Browne,’ issued admonishment to his potentially ‘Acquisitively Creative Ministers.’

They were advised that at all material times, they shall show legitimacy for
that which they may acquire, while in public life.

INTELLECTUAL SKULLDUGERY

This was particularly highlighted to; (a) ‘Bring public awareness; (b) Bring some measure of respite to victims of ‘Intellectual Skullduggery: (c) Assist the ‘Bar Council’ to better
‘Manage’ its organizational affairs; and for (d) The ‘Association’ to have greater ‘Disciplinary
Control’ of errant members.’

Additionally, given the apparent ‘Gravity and Rampancy’ among certain practitioners, this may now occupy the ‘Investigative Attention’ of the ‘Appropriate Authority- Office of National Drug and Money Laundering Policy (ONDCP).

PARASITIC TENDENCIES

Few may deny that outside of ‘Illiteracy and Stupidity,’ few things are more expensive than
‘Education.’ To the affluent or those with visible means and affordability, educational
opportunities are easily within their grasp.

As a consequence, those with affordability are well- positioned to aspire and achieve. To the indigent, life has always been a battle. It has always been up-hill battle and financial struggle has been an unsurmountable challenge.

When ‘Survival Strategies’ forced them into situations whereby they have made the conscious decision ‘Necessity knows no law,’ the law somehow, was always there to prove them wrong in both their thoughts and actions.

PROTECTION AGAINST DECEPTION

In the wider society, and as seen in two jurisdictions, ‘Barbados and Jamaica,’ law enforcers
within this jurisdiction need no reminder of the ‘Law Enforcement Code of Ethics;’ (a) ‘My fundamental duty is to serve the community; (b) To protect the weak against oppression and intimidation; and most importantly, (c) Protecting the innocent and ignorant, against
‘Deception and Fraud’ [LECE: October 1957].

Consequent upon this ‘Truth,’ one may harbor little fear of contradiction, that most ‘Bar Associations; Bar Councils and Presidents’ within the ‘Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS),’ fits the description ascribed to these Statutorily-established organizations, including the ‘Disciplinary Committee of ABBA,’ by ‘Sir Gerald Owen Anderson Watt KCN, King’s Counsel (KC).’

PUBLIC INFORMATION

This ‘Committee,’ is not only guided by the ‘Rules of Procedures,’ but also shall conform to
the ‘Disciplinary Control Rules.’ These impose a ‘Legal Duty’ on its membership to publish
their ‘Findings’ for ‘Public Information.’

There were times when litigants, clients and general public quietly quizzed; (i) ‘Why were there no action initiated against criminally- offending Attorneys? and (ii) ‘Why criminal prosecutions’ have not been instituted against ‘Attorneys for ‘Rascal Behavior’ within ‘Antigua and Barbuda’ and other ‘OECS Jurisdictions?’

The answer may very well lie in the description given by ‘House Speaker and veteran Attorney-at- Law,’ the feisty, indomitable and unconquerable and verbally ruthless, ‘Sir Gerald.’

To all intents and purposes, having been publicly chided, he once described the ‘ABBA’ as a – Useless lot.’

FRAUDULENT CONDUCT

Five days a week, practicing ‘Attorneys-at-law,’ are seen impeccably attired in ‘White collars
and black gowns.’ Among these ‘Good and Noble Officers of the Court,’ were said to be a
handful of depraved ones. These, in their practice, are the unexpected, unsuspected and
undetected criminals.

A small minority have been accused of ‘Fleecing’ unsuspecting and vulnerable persons.’ Before clients and litigants could say; ‘Jesus Wept,’ many will have seen their finances being gobbled down, likened to a ‘Turkey’ gobbling down a wormy lunch. Then there are those appearing at the ‘Magistrate’s Courts,’ clad in ‘Jacket and Ties,’ have also been accused of exhibiting ‘Fraudulent Conduct’ that speaks to depravity.

PARASITIC TENDENCIES

At the higher level of the ‘Judiciary,’ those dressed in ‘White Collars and Black Gowns,’ are
the ones that stand before ‘Judges and Juries.’ These are the ones that often represent persons at the ‘Bar.’ These are the ones under ‘Criminal Indictments.’ Likened to those appearing before the ‘Magistracy,’ a few seemed to have developed a ‘Private Practice,’ that speaks to ‘Deception and Fraud.’ They are often accused of using their ‘Intellectual Knowledge.’

The few have made it demonstrably clear, that their law practice, is to be guided by a ‘Tendency,’ seen only in ‘Parasites.’ Those familiar with the ‘Legal Profession Act,’ know that such practice neither enjoys ‘Legality’ nor ‘Legitimacy.’

UNTOUCHABLE AND UNPROSECUTABLE

Irrespective of ‘Dress Code,’ their conduct infrequently placed them in the category of ‘White- Collar Criminals.’ They were often being seen ‘Untouchable and Unprosecutable.’ Among the populace, this was more of ‘an Observation than a Wish.’ However, from professional knowledge, understanding and practical enforcement of ‘Criminal Law,’ these practitioners, in actuality, will have been living off the ‘Proceeds of Crime’ [POCA: No. 13 of 1993].

Today, it has not necessarily been for the lack of concern for the plight of others.

ACADEMIC EDUCATION

None may deny how costly ‘Illiteracy and Stupidity,’ has been for the person of indigence.
Such costliness has taken second place only to ‘Education.’ The point that has to be clearly
made is that, those that have invested thousands of dollars in pursuit of ‘Academic Education,’ not only know the value of such investment, but shall also seek legitimate ways in earning a living.

In many jurisdictions, including ‘Antigua and Barbuda,’ that which Clients/Litigants
had often been complained of, were ‘Attorneys-at-law,’ that rightly or wrongly, were
considered to have possessed ‘Vulture-like instincts.’

These are the ones that were often accused of preying on the ‘Innocence’ of the semi-illiterate, unsuspecting and vulnerable.

OVER- POPULATED LEGAL INDUSTRY

Situationally, whether or not considered the desirable thing to do, some ‘Attorneys’ could adopt no undertaking in representing the indigent. For, in an almost over-populated ‘Legal Industry,’ with a fraternity of ‘some 200 Attorneys-at-law,’ ‘Private Legal Practice’ has entered a ‘Dangerous Zone.’

A small minority was reported to have been ‘Fleecing’ the innocent and ignorant,’ as if there will be no ‘December.’ Competition is tight, thus reducing a legal practice to ‘Opportunism.’ Not infrequently, this has been the among the causes of ‘Human and Financial Miseries.’

MAN MUST LIVE

While the ‘Legal Profession Act’ speaks to certain behavior as ‘Professional Misconduct,’ in
the wider society, this has been criminally classified as ‘Fraudulent Behavior.’ Likened to
others, many will have followed the social commentary of ‘Alphonsus Cassell, ‘Mighty Arrow’ Man must Live’ [1978: YouTube]. Still, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone’ [KJV: Matthew 4: 4].

The Scripture commanded; ‘Thou shalt not steal’ [Exodus 20: 15]. Today, while the
‘Needy’ that lives in ‘Despairing Misery,’ snatched a pittance to eat, is dispatched to the
penitentiary, the ‘Greedy’ that huffed ‘Billions’ from Banks, lives in ‘Enviable Luxury.’

ISSUE OF FRAUD

The issue of ‘Fraud’ has always been a statutorily-defined criminal offence. It has always been the function of ‘Law Enforcement.’ Legal practitioners, therefore, shall not only be mindful of conduct that may negatively impact ‘Client/Litigant Relations,’ but they shall also know that likened to other jurisdictions, they are subject to the ‘Rule of Law.’

While some behavior exhibited by some Attorneys-at-Law,’ may border criminality, it was often best dealt with internally by a ‘Disciplinary Committee.’ The purposes contained in the ‘Legal Profession Act,’ shall be better understood from the contents that state; ‘An Act to provide for; (i) ‘The regulation of the Legal Profession; (ii) Qualification of Practitioners; (iii) Enrolment of Practitioners; (iv) Discipline of its members; and (v) For incidental and connected purposes’ [Section 11: LPA: No. 22 of 2008].

INTELLECTUAL SKILLS

The ‘Legal Practitioner’ that may not even have been familiar with these, will have been among the few that, unsuspecting to Clients/Litigants will have been accused of using ‘Intellectual Skills,’ thereby causing the innocent to act to their detriment.

These have often sought to leave ‘Clients or Litigants’ with ‘One Arm or One Leg.’ Incidentally, these will have seen the profession mainly for its; (a) ‘Commercialization; than of its; (b) Nobility; and (c) For ‘Creative Acquisition’ than ‘Service to Humanity.’

In this jurisdiction, shall one speak to the issue of such ‘Service,’ then the names that memorably stands out, must be those in the persona of; (i) ‘The) Ralph Francis’ [Deceased: ANR: March 2, 2021]; and (ii) John Eli Fullers’ [Deceased: ANR: September 28, 2022].

SENSE OF SERVICE

These were not only men of high repute, but also known for their honesty and integrity. These were practitioners of exemplary professional behavior. They were always willing and ready to assist the ‘Undefended Indigent.’ who They had clearly shown that they were endowed with ‘Reason and Conscience.’ These they had seemingly allowed to be their ‘Guiding Principles.’

Today, their ‘Legacy’ lives on. Today, in many, as in this jurisdiction, that culture and ‘Sense
of Service’ have changed. Today, the yesteryear practitioners, are not only being remembered, but also being emulated. Shared information provided an understanding that there are several other practitioners of ‘Noble Intent and Deed.’

PRO BONO SERVICES

Those widely-known were identified as ‘Attorneys’ in the persona of the (i) ‘Charlesworth
Tabors; (ii) Kenny Kentish’s;( iii) Wendell Robinsons: (iv) Andrew O’Kolas; and (v) Lawrence Daniels.’

These shall not be viewed as overshadowing legal services rendered by
others, not so identified. Conscious of the plight of some ‘Defendants/Litigants,’ relying solely on ‘Dock Briefs,’ they have provided ‘Pro Bono Services’ to those viewed as not only living at the ‘Edge of Poverty,’ but also in complete financial misery. Lest it be misconstrued, ‘Truth’ be told, such has never been a dischargeable social responsibility of any ‘Practicing Attorneys.’

A FEW SCALLYWAGS

Dissatisfied with the ‘Professional Conduct,’ they have reportedly caused disciplinary actions
to be instituted against ‘A Few Scallywags.’ Those discretely disclosed and listed in this
commentary, included (i) ‘An Everette Christian; (ii) A Samuel Peters; and (iii) A Yanick
Beazer.’ These became victims, when ‘Trusted Attorneys,’ reportedly employed ‘Intellectual
Stealthiness’ and allegedly ‘Fingered their Monies.’

On this particular issue, though a very small minority of attorneys may have been ‘Secretly disciplined, there has been no public disclosure as the ‘Legal Profession Act (LPA)’ dictates [Section 11: No.22 of 2008]. That said, the ‘Disciplinary Records’ within this jurisdiction, shall reflect recent ‘Harrowing Experiences’ of ‘Applicants.’

INTELLECTUAL RASCALITY

Irrespective of him/her that held/holds the ‘Bar Presidency,’ rightly or wrongly, arrogantly or feisty, mincing not his words, ‘Sir Gerald’ had indirectly made the point of ‘Presidential
Impotency.’

If it were not so, both ‘Clients and Litigants’ that have engaged the services of
certain ‘Legal Practitioners,’ and by extension, the general public, will have heard of
‘Findings’ of the ‘Disciplinary Committee.’

They will have heard of sanctions justly and properly imposed upon those found guilty of professional impropriety or ‘Intellectual Rascality.’ The recently-elected ‘President, Cherissa Roberts-Thomas,’ shall not only be mindful of ‘Sir Gerald’s’ uncomplimentary utterings, but shall also follow the dictates of the ‘Rule’ as contained in the ‘Legal Profession Act’ [Section 11: No 22 of 2008].

COSTS AND FEES

Consequent upon certain discussions, it appeared that very often ‘suspicion or misunderstanding or miscommunication’ has been among other reasons for ‘Attorney/Client/Litigant’ turpitude.

Frequently, it seems that suspicious or inflated sums have triggered, either ‘Necessary or
Unnecessary’ queries and/or arguments. With only ‘Lopsided Knowledge’ of the ‘Legal
Profession Act,’ as well as ‘Perceived Suspect Legal Advice’ tendered.

Those so aggrieved
and so dissatisfied with the ‘attitude, interest shown and performance’ of the ‘Attorney,’ have seen many ‘Clients/Litigants’ severing the ‘Legal Services’ offered and engaged. The ‘Legal Profession Act’ interprets ‘Costs’ as include; (a) ‘Fees for any Legal Business’ done by an Attorney-at-Law.’

SHUTTLING BETWEEN COURTS

Conversely, it interprets ‘Fees’ as includes; (i) ‘Remuneration: (ii) Charges; (ii)
Disbursements; and (ii) Expenses.’ The latter appears to have been the source of
‘Clients/Litigants Troubles and Financial Woes.’ That which ‘Clients/ Litigants’ shall be
sufficiently made to understand, is that the ‘Cost for Consultation’ (Talking), is not the same as ‘Fees’ for ‘Court Appearances,’ That which ‘Attorneys-at-Law’ shall be mindful of, is that when the name of a ‘Defendant/Plaintiff’ is called, punctuality demands that they are present to identify themselves to the Court as their ‘Legal Representatives.’ Attorneys’ ‘Shuttling Between Courts’ simply to ‘Crave indulgence for Adjournments,’ not only run the risk of being told of biting more than can be chewed,’ but also likely to provoke and incur the ‘Wrath of Clients/Litigants.’

FATEFUL AND AGONIZING

A ‘Fateful and Agonizing’ decision saw the ’17- year prosecutorial tenure of Director of
Public Prosecutions (DPP), Anthony Armstrong,’ now hanging in the balance. The position
was as prestigious, as it was enviable. There is testament that he has discharged his
‘Prosecutorial Duties’ professionally and faithfully.

In a hostile and vicious environment, it was the effective discharge of his ‘Constitutional Duties’ that saw attitudinal change in some members of the wider society. Even so, he remained undaunted and demonstrated a resolve that he was committed to discharge his prosecutorial duties, not only according to the dictates of the ‘Rule of Law,’ but also int public and national interests.

SENSATIONALIZING ADVERSITY

Some two weeks recently, State and national, regional and international media, have been fixated on ‘Antigua and Barbuda Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Anthony Armstrong.’
This resulted, when unwittingly, he travelled to his native-Jamaica following, either a peculiar request or advice apparently void of wisdom [November 7, 2022].

Undoubtedly, the ‘Jamaican- born national’ has now been the subject of criminal prosecutions. His life, legal career, prosecutorial practice and future, now hang in the balance. That which disturbingly and disappointingly followed, was the disingenuous way news reporters, casters and portals chose to ‘Sensationalized his Adversity.’

DOUBLE JEOPARDY
This was made worse with headlines that states; (a) ‘Antigua DPP Charged with Fraud; and
(b) Antigua DPP Hit with Additional Fraud Charges’ [Jamaica Gleaner: The Jamaica
Gleaner: ABS Television/Radio et al].

In the instant case the unfortunate ‘Anthony Armstrong’ may have become a ‘Victim of Double Jeopardy.’ Consequential to ‘an Adverse Decision’ delivered against him, and the imposition of a Fine,’ by a ‘Disciplinary Tribunal,’ should there be a criminal trial, he may very well be advised to ‘Plea Autrefois Convict.’

It has been well established in law that an accused person shall not be tried and punished twice for the same offence.’

FAKE NEWS

As the saga unfolded, some news portals, possibly deceived and/or fed ‘Fake News’ have
disseminated information that his ‘Fate and Future’ now lies in the hands of the St. Lucia-
based Judicial and Legal Service Commission (JLSC)’ [ANU: November 10, 2022].

That which ‘Cabinet Minister and Spokesperson’ appeared not to have been apprised was that the embattled ‘Anthony Armstrong’ was said to be enjoying his ‘Vacation/Pre-Retirement Leave Entitlement’ on his native ‘Jamaica’ [November 2022].

Confidential sources have revealed that he is likely to demit office immediately thereafter. Incidentally, there was reported to have been a ‘Pending Disciplinary Appellate Decision,’ prior to the institution of criminal proceedings against him.

DISCIPLINARY CONTROL BODY

Whatever has been his ‘Professional Transgressions,’ the records of the ‘Jamaica General
Legal Council (GLC),’ shall show these were alleged to have been committed in a ‘Private
Law Practice’ on his native ‘Jamaica’ almost two decades ago’ [2003 -2004]. None has stated, and could not have stated as fact that his entanglement with the law, occurred since assuming the prosecutorial position within the jurisdiction of ‘Antigua and Barbuda’ jurisdiction.’

However, likened to a magician, exploiting the sleight of hands to affect the illusory senses,
pulled a ‘Trick from his sleeve,’ criminal proceedings were initiated against the ‘Chief Crown
Prosecutor’ for the twin-island sovereign nation of ‘Antigua and Barbuda.’

PUBLIC PERCEPTION
Since he had not been cited for ‘Professional Misconduct’ during his ‘Prosecutorial Tenure’
[Antigua and Barbuda: October 17, 2005 – November 6, 2022], that which might militate
continuance in the position, may be that of ‘Public Perception.’ The professional practice and disciplinary control body,’ is a ‘Creature of Statute.’

Its powers are derived from the parliamentary enactment, cited as ‘The Legal Profession Act’ [Jamaica]. Consequent upon such enactment, not only have powers reside in ‘the ‘Disciplinary Committee,’ of three upstanding members of the ‘Legal Profession,’ but the ‘Enactment’ also provides for the establishment of ‘Disciplinary Tribunals’ to hear and determine allegations of ‘Professional Misconduct.’

PRESIDENTIAL DUTY

As it has been the ‘Duty’ of other ‘Bar Presidents,’ the ‘Disciplinary Rule,’ as contained in the ‘Legal Profession Act,’ makes it sufficiently clear for the ‘20-year legal veteran President
Cherissa Roberts-Thomas’ (ABBA) to enforce the ‘Rule’ for making ‘Public Pronouncements on Disciplinary Findings,’ as the law so dictates. Given the authority-at-law, ‘Disciplinary Findings,’ however serious or grievous, such ‘Findings’ shall never be left to wild public speculations.

If it should be considered a gentle reminder, the ‘Rule’ unambiguously
states; (a) ‘The Committee shall hear all Applications in camera; and (b) It shall pronounce
its findings in public’ [Section 11: Legal Profession Act: No. 22 of 2008]. Such reflects a
consistency with judicially-practiced ‘in-camera criminal trials for Rape.’

CONCLUSION

Logic, therefore, suggests that had there been ‘Conformity’ to existing and enforceable law,
may not only have seen significant improvement in ‘Professional Conduct,’ but also less
disciplinary hearings for serious breaches that constitute ‘Professional Misconduct.’

Looked at unbiased, and objectively, every member of the ‘Legal Fraternity’ owes it to be so reminded of this particular ‘Rule; ‘The purposes of the ‘Association’ is to maintain and improve the standards of ‘Professional Conduct in Antigua and Barbuda.’ Since it would assist in reinforce ‘…Nobility in the Legal Profession,’ and at the same time help in reducing
‘…Rascality in the Professionals,’ thereby strengthen waned or shattered public confidence,
Clients and Litigants, and by extension, the citizenry so urged.

Advertise with the mоѕt vіѕіtеd nеwѕ ѕіtе іn Antigua!
We offer fully customizable and flexible digital marketing packages.
Contact us at [email protected]