Attorney Leona Duncan Defends the Decision of the Judicial & Legal Services Commission

Leona Duncan

Attorney Leona Duncan, who appeared on behalf of the Solicitor General’s Office, submitted that the decision by the Judicial and Legal Services Commission not to forward the complaint against Justice Awich was the right decision.  The basis for her argument is that there are separate provisions under the constitution through which a Justice of the Supreme Court should be removed and that the appellants failed to trigger that motion. 

Judge

“Why do you want us to say that this previous conduct by the learned judge was not relevant now?”

Leona Duncan, Attorney

“We are saying that it’s best left under, while he was seated as a Supreme Court judge because we have the constitutional provisions under Section 98 which governs how or to challenge the removal as a Supreme Court judge.  Now he is elevated to a Justice of the Court of Appeal and there is a different provision to challenge that, well to start removal under that Section 102.”

Judge

“So there are different removal provisions in relation to Court of Appeal and Supreme Court judges.  Is that what you are saying?  Constitutionally, there are different provisions that relate to… “

Leona Duncan

“For removal of inability or misbehavior of that judge as seated under each court.  [Section] 98 for the Justice of Supreme Court, for inability or misbehavior and Section 102 as a Justice of the Court of Appeal for inability or misbehavior.”

Judge

“But the grounds are the same…”

Leona Duncan

“They are the same but they are different constitutional provisions for removal.”

Judge

“And the provisions that they triggered were which, the Appeal Court provisions or the Supreme Court provisions?”

Leona Duncan

“The Appeal Court provisions, and that is why the commission came to the proper decision by saying under, we respectfully submit, under the conduct complained of was past, it was irrelevant, it was under Section 98 that was never, a complaint was never lodged.  They did not seek anything; they did not trigger Section 98 which deals with the removal process of a Supreme Court judge.”