Sturge wins contempt appeal, but sent to Law Assoc for probe

Attorney Wayne Sturge
Attorney Wayne Sturge

Former United National Congress (UNC) senator and criminal defence attorney Wayne Sturge has won his appeal of his 2017 conviction of contempt of court.

However, he does not get off scot free as the court ordered that he be referred to the disciplinary committee of the Law Association for investigation.

In a majority ruling, Justices of Appeal Justices Alice Yorke-Soo Hon and Mark Mohammed found that Justice Norton Jack’s finding of contempt was unlawful since the trial process was unfair.
The two judges said the trial judge failed to “properly particularise” the allegations against Sturge, failed to inform himself of the facts and necessary evidence and failed to give the attorney the opportunity to give evidence if he wanted to.

“In this case, the contempt of court procedure adopted by the judge was undoubtedly sanctioned to serve the due administration of justice.
“Inherent in such a procedure is the reasonable expectation by an alleged contemnor that the process would adhere to the underlying principles of natural justice, more particularly, that of a fair hearing.

“The judge’s approach in these contempt proceedings did not meet the requisite standard of procedural fairness,” Soo Hon and Mohammed said.
Sturge was found guilty and fined $5,000 over a series of posts he made on his Facebook account while he was involved in a murder trial before Justice Norton Jack in October, 2016.
The posts related to Jack’s handling of the case and the testimony of the State’s main witness in the trial, which resulted in five accused men, among them Sturge’s clients, being convicted of the lesser offence of manslaughter. Jack said the social media posts risked prejudicing the trial and the administration of justice.

In deciding against ordering a retrial, the two appellate judges noted that the Facebook posts were made during the course of an ongoing trial, but that no longer existed.
They said to order a retrial “would be devoid of context” as the factual scenario which led to the contempt proceedings would be difficult to recreate and would be an academic exercise and one in futility.

However, the two judges, in referring the matter to the disciplinary committee of the Law Association, said they were not unmindful that, prima facie, Sturge’s alleged conduct was potentially detrimental to the administration of justice, “more so in the modern environment where the use of social media is prolific.”
“We accept that this sort of conduct, prima facie, cannot be countenanced and that there is a public interest in deterring it. With that in mind, we consider that on the face of it, the alleged acts on the part of the appellant were quite serious and warrant a referral to the disciplinary committee of the Law Association,” Soo-Hon and Mohammed said in their majority decision.
However, Narine, in his dissenting ruling, said the case against Sturge was strong and in his view a retrial should have been ordered.

He said as a lawyer for some 20 years, Sturge could have had no doubt as to the case he had to answer.
Narine pointed out that there was no denial that the posts were from Sturge’s page and appeared to have taken responsibility for them and offered a guarded apology.
He also said a retrial should have been ordered because the majority decision did not consider the risk to the administration of justice and to the fairness of trials in the future “if this type of conduct is not firmly addressed.”
“The potential risk to the administration of justice, particularly in jury trials, by the use of social media to attack the credibility of witnesses, is enormous.

“The use of social media is now so widespread, that the court must act decisively to ensure that this type of conduct does not become prevalent.”
In their majority decision, Soo Hon and Mohammed provided guidance for judges to follow in contempt cases.
Sturge was represented by Richard Clayton, QC, Anand Ramlogan, SC, Lemuel Murphy, Alvin Pariagsingh and Joseph Sookoo.
The State was represented by deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Joan Honore-Paul and assistant DPP Angelica Teelucksingh-Ramoutar.

Comments

"Sturge wins contempt appeal, but sent to Law Assoc for probe"

More in this section