Guyanese Justice of Appeal disbarred

in London, resigns here

…resigns from Appellate Court

Having promised to augment the local justice sector following his appointment as a Justice of Appeal in Guyana, Rabi Sukul, is now in a legal quandary in London after he was disbarred for nine months. He was found guilty of intentionally misleading his client by drafting false grounds of appeal.

President Donald Ramotar presents Justice Rabi Shankar Sukul his document following his swearing-in as a Justice of Appeal.

According to the English ‘Law Gazette Society,’ the bar’s disciplinary tribunal this week heard that Sukul, of Balham Chambers, London, drafted a document to the Court of Appeal, setting out initial grounds for an appeal against conviction on behalf of his client, who had been convicted of drugs-related offences. The tribunal found that he had created the document, knowing it to be false, with the intention of misleading his client into believing he had grounds to appeal his conviction, when Sukul knew there were no grounds of appeal. The five-person tribunal, chaired by His Honour Michael Baker QC, found unanimously that Sukul had intentionally misled his client and engaged in conduct likely to bring the legal profession into disrepute. Sukul was ordered to be disbarred but the decision is open to appeal. Head of professional conduct at the Bar Standards Board, Sara Down said: ‘Our duty as a regulator is, first and foremost, to protect the public and safeguard the client. The decision came down on February 3. According to the details of his offence, Justice Sukul engaged in conduct that was likely to bring the legal profession into disrepute, in that on or before March 15, 2012, he created a document entitled ‘application to Appeal against conviction’ that was false and he knew it was false with intention of misleading his client, into believing he had grounds to appeal his conviction when he knew there were no grounds of appeal. His charge alleged that Justice Sukul between the March 1, 2012 and the October 19, 2012 in proceedings before the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), recklessly misled the court by causing, allowing or inducing the court to believe that an application for leave to appeal against conviction was a true document and that there were genuine grounds of appeal when he knew that there were no such grounds of appeal and he failed to notify the Court of Appeal of that fact. Acting Chancellor of the of the Guyana Judiciary, Justice Carl Singh, yesterday by way of a public statement said that he has requested the immediate resignation of Justice Sukul who has undertaken to do so. According to the statement Justice Singh said, “It has come to the attention of the Office of the Chancellor that Justice Rabi Sukul, a Judge of the Court of Appeal of Guyana, was on February 3rd 2014, disbarred by the Bar Council of England and Wales.” He indicated that Justice Sukul last week applied for and was granted special leave “to attend to urgent personal matters in the United Kingdom.” On Friday news of the disbarment came to the attention of the acting Chancellor of the Judiciary who sought and obtained from Justice Sukul confirmation of his disbarment. Sukul was sworn in as a Judge in the Court of Appeal locally by Head of State Donald Ramotar, in July last year. He took the Oath of Office in the presence Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall, Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee, Chancellor of the Judiciary (Ag) Carl Singh, Director of Public Prosecution Shalimar Ali-Hack among others. The 60-year old jurist at his swearing-in said, “I intend to apply the legal principles, apply law logic and good sound objective judicial reasoning which I have learnt and practised in the United Kingdom,” Ramotar at the time expressed the hope that Sukul’s duties reflect fairness and expeditiousness. Cognizant that the shortcomings of the local judicial system are not unlike other jurisdictions where criticisms have been heavy, Justice Sukul promised to do all in his powers to “minimize that effect.” The expectation of the Chancellor of the Judiciary at the time about the newly appointed jurist was similar as he urged; “hard work and a dedicated contribution to the development of our country’s jurisprudence.”