Lawrence v Attorney General of Grenada
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Lord Scott of Foscote,Lord Mance |
| Judgment Date | 26 March 2007 |
| Neutral Citation | [2007] UKPC 18 |
| Court | Privy Council |
| Docket Number | Appeal No 14 of 2005 |
| Date | 26 March 2007 |
[2007] UKPC 18
Privy Council
Present at the hearing:-
Lord Bingham of Cornhill
Lord Scott of Foscote
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry
Lord Carswell
Lord Mance
[Majority Judgment delivered by Lord Scott of Foscote]
The background
Julie Lawrence, the appellant before the Board, held the office of Director of Audit of Grenada, a highly important office for which specific provision is made in the Granada Constitution (see section 82). It is the duty of the Director of Audit to audit and report on the public accounts of Grenada and on the accounts of all officers and authorities of the Government of Grenada (s.82(2)). The Director of Audit has a statutory right of access to "all books, records, returns, reports and other documents which in his [or her] opinion relate to any of the accounts referred to in sub-section (2) …" (s.82(3)). Sub-section (4) of section 82 requires the Director of Audit to submit to the Minister of Finance every report he or she makes and requires the Minister, "not later than seven days after the House of Representatives first meets after he has received the report", to lay the report before the House.
The content of these sub-sections of section 82 makes clear the constitutional importance of the office of Director of Audit. The Director must act as a watchdog on behalf of the public to guard against any impropriety in the conduct of the public finances of Grenada. This constitutional importance of the office is reflected in sub-section (6) of section 82 which says that in exercise of his functions under sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) the Director of Audit "… shall not be subject …" to the direction or control of any other person or authority" and in sub-section (6) of section 87 which says that
"A person holding the office of Director of Audit may be removed from office only for inability to exercise the functions of his office (whether arising from infirmity of body or mind or any other cause) or for misbehaviour and shall not be so removed except in accordance with the provisions of this section".
The prescribed procedure for removal of a Director of Audit is set out in sub-sections (7) and (8) and must be complied with whether the removal is to be on the ground of incapacity or on the ground of misbehaviour
"(7) The Director of Audit shall be removed from office by the Governor-General if the question of the removal from office has been referred to a tribunal appointed under subsection (8) of this section and the tribunal has recommended to the Governor-General that he ought to be removed for inability as aforesaid or for misbehaviour.
(8) If the Prime Minister or the Chairman of the Public Service Commission represents to the Governor-General that the question of removing the Director of Audit under this section ought to be investigated –
a. the Governor-General shall appoint a tribunal which shall consist of a Chairman and not less than two other members, selected by the Chief Justice from among persons who hold or have held office as a judge of a court having unlimited jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters in some part of the Commonwealth or a court having jurisdiction in appeals from such a court; and
b. the tribunal shall enquire into the matter and report on the facts thereof to the Governor-General and recommend to him whether the Director of Audit ought to be removed under this section."
Identical provisions apply to the removal from office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (see section 86(6) to (8). The protection against arbitrary or unjustified removal from office that these provisions provide underlines the undoubted constitutional importance that the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Director of Audit, in their discharge of their respective functions, should be independent of the executive. No doubt similar protection is, for the same reasons, provided to judges under the Courts Order (see section 39(2) and (9) of the Constitution).
On 11 August 1999 the appellant, the Director of Audit, wrote to Dr Keith Mitchell, who was at the time both the Minister of Finance and Prime Minister of Grenada, an intemperate and abusive letter. She sent copies to the Clerk of Parliament and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. The Minister was so incensed by this behaviour that he put in train the section 87 removal procedure by writing to the chairman of the Public Service Commission a letter dated 14 September 1999 enclosing the appellant's 11 August 1999 letter, and requesting the chairman to ask the Governor-General "to set up a tribunal to inquire into the conduct of Ms Lawrence to determine whether she ought not to be removed from office for misbehaviour".
Their Lordships will refer more fully to the content of the relevant correspondence later in this judgment and it suffices for the moment to say that by letter dated 25 November 1999 the chairman of the Public Services Commission represented to the Governor-General that "the question of removing the Director of Audit from office ought to be investigated" and that on 15 December 1999 the Governor-General appointed a tribunal to inquire into
"an allegation of misbehaviour by the [appellant] consisting of conduct unbecoming of a public officer and holder of the post of Director of Audit and prejudicial to the reputation and good order of the Public Service of Grenada in that the [appellant] recklessly and improperly made unwarranted and unsubstantiated accusations of impropriety against a Minister of the Crown that the said Minister tampered with or improperly altered a Report of the Director of Audit prior to its being laid in the Parliament pursuant to section 82(4) of the Constitution the said accusations being contained in a letter dated 11 August 1999 and addressed to the Hon. Keith C. Mitchell, Minister of Finance and Prime Minister."
The Tribunal conducted its inquiry over the period 8 to 10 February 2000 and on 29 February 2000 issued its report. The report, a document of just under 100 pages, concluded its survey of the facts with the following paragraph:
"We are satisfied that on the evidence before us Julie G. Lawrence misbehaved. She acted recklessly; and she wrongly and improperly made unsubstantiated and unjustified accusations that the Minister of Finance improperly interfered with, by altering or amending or mutilating (with scratches and insertions) her Reports Nos 1 and 2 of 1999 prior to their being laid in Parliament. We are in no doubt that such conduct was unbecoming of anyone holding the position of Director of Audit."
Finally, under the heading "Recommendation", the Tribunal advised the Governor-General that it was their unanimous opinion that the appellant ought to be removed from office. Accordingly, by letter to the appellant dated 10 March 1999, the Governor-General informed her that she would, with effect from 31 March 2000, be removed from office for misbehaviour.
The appellant then commenced proceedings to have the recommendation of the Tribunal and her removal from office by the Governor-General set aside. At first instance Alleyne J, in a judgment of 5 October 2000, found in her favour. He disagreed with the view the Tribunal had taken of the import of the appellant's 11 August 1999 letter. He thought the tribunal had based its findings not on what the letter said, but on what the Prime Minister had interpreted the letter as saying (see paras. 82 and 83 of his judgment). And he regarded as a procedural irregularity the fact that the Tribunal had not called for the reports in order to inspect their condition. He set aside her removal from office.
The Attorney-General appealed. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and re-instated the recommendation of the Tribunal and the Governor-General's consequent removal of the appellant from office. The appellant now appeals to the Board. It is somewhat of an oddity that although the appellant is pursuing with determination her application for a declaration that her removal from the office of Director of Audit was unlawful, she is seeking neither re-instatement in that office nor arrears of remuneration nor any compensation for loss of that office. Their Lordships were told that she had obtained alternative employment shortly after her removal from office in March 2000 and that her purpose in prosecuting this appeal is to clear away the finding of section 87(6) "misbehaviour" made against her by the Tribunal and confirmed by the Court of Appeal.
The letter of 11 August 1999
The Tribunal's finding of "misbehaviour" warranting a recommendation for removal from office was based upon the content of the appellant's letter of 11 August 1999. It is necessary to set out the letter in full but, first, the circumstances that led the appellant to write an undeniably intemperate letter must be described. On 30 March 1999 the appellant had submitted to Dr Mitchell two audit reports which, pursuant to her duty under section 82(2) of the Constitution, she had prepared. Both reports related to the 1994 public accounts of Grenada. It was the Minister's duty to lay the two reports before the House of Representatives not later than seven days after he had received them (s.82(2)). The Minister did not do so and on 23 June 1999 the appellant wrote him a letter expressing her concern about this. When she wrote her 11 August 1999 letter the reports had still not been laid before the House of Representatives. There had been previous delays in the laying of the appellant's audit reports before the House. On 31 December 1997 she had submitted to the Minister an audit report on the 1993 public accounts and on 2 April 1998 she had a meeting with him, at her request, as the report had not yet been laid before the House. At this meeting the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Law Association of Trinidad and Tobago v Dr. Keith Rowley the Prime Minister of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago
...of the Chief Justice of Gibraltar (Referral under s 4 of the Judicial Committee Act 1833) [2009] UKPC 43 paragraph 262 75 Lawrence v Attorney General of Grenada [2007] 1 WLR 1474, paragraph 76 Dean Boyce and others v The Judicial and Legal Services Commission [2018] CCJ 23 (AJ), paragraph......
-
R Jason Michael v The Governor of HMP Whitemoor
...position is found in the opinion of Lord Mance, on the Privy Council, albeit dissenting in the result, in Lawrence v Attorney General [2007] 1 WLR 1474 at [65]: “The relevant question is … whether the Tribunal would, if its members had properly directed themselves by reference to the relev......
-
Re Chief Justice of Gibraltar
...recent authoritative guidance on the meaning of misbehaviour is to be found in the advice of this Committee in the case of Lawrence v Attorney General of Grenada [2007] UKPC 18; [2007] 1 WLR 1474. That appeal was against the removal from office of the Director of Audit of Grenada under a ......
-
Danville Walker v Contractor-General of Jamaica
...... 9 The case of Lawrence v Ministry of Construction (Works) and the Attorney General (1991) 28 J.L.R. 265 was also ......
-
The Federal Court of Australia: the first 30 years - a survey on the occasion of two anniversaries.
...(Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Callinan, Heydon and Crennan JJ); S v Boulton (2006) 151 FCR 364, 369-70 (Black CJ). (97) Lawrence v A-G (Grenada) [2007] 1 WLR 1474, 1483-4 (Lord Scott), citing Clark v Vanstone (in her capacity as Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs) (200......
-
The Definition of Judicial Misconduct in the Judicial Council Act 2019
...[2004] FCA 1105, (2004) 81 ALD 21. This case was cited with approval by Lord Scott of Foscote in Lawrence v Attorney General of Grenada [2007] 1 WLR 1474. In the latter case, the Director of Audit of Grenada sent an intemperate letter to the Prime Minister and others accusing him of tamperi......
-
Aspects of judicial independence and accountability - lessons for the Commonwealth Caribbean
...of the former Chief Justice of Trinidad and Tobago, Hon Satnarine Sharma, and comprising Lord Mustill, the Rt Hon Sir Vincent 42 [2007] 1 WLR 1474. 43 At para. 25. 108 Caribbean Law Review Floissac and Mr Dennis Morrison QC (as he then was) (the Mustill Tribunal) applied the criminal standa......