Fran­cis Joseph

Five se­nior coun­sel and the es­tate of a sixth, have been award­ed close to $4 mil­lion in costs and in­ter­ests for rep­re­sent­ing the late Jus­tice Richard Al­fred Crane in his le­gal bat­tles over his sus­pen­sion 19 years ago. Jus­tice Vasheist Kokaram, pre­sid­ing in the Port-of-Spain High Court, award­ed the sum to se­nior coun­sel Al­lan Alexan­der, Frank Solomon, Desmond Al­lum, Regi­nald Ar­mour, and Dou­glas Mendes. The oth­er at­tor­ney who filed the claim was, Mal­colm Milne, but he died be­fore the mat­ter was heard in the High Court.

The claim was against Phillip Crane, son of the late judge, and ex­ecu­tor of the last will made by his fa­ther. Kokaram award­ed the sum of $2,373,506 to the at­tor­neys, along with six per­cent in­ter­est per an­num from the date of the fil­ing of the writ. He al­so award­ed costs to the six at­tor­neys for their suc­cess­ful claim. The six lawyers rep­re­sent­ed Crane in a ju­di­cial re­view ac­tion and con­sti­tu­tion­al mo­tion fol­low­ing his sus­pen­sion from the Bench in 1990. They ap­peared for Crane in the High Court and Court of Ap­peal, but were not re­tained when the mat­ter reached the Privy Coun­cil in 1993. Crane re­tained Eng­lish Queen's Coun­sel Ge­of­frey Robert­son to rep­re­sent him be­fore the Law Lords.

Af­ter he suc­ceed­ed be­fore the Privy Coun­cil, Crane was en­ti­tled to dam­ages and costs. He was award­ed $185,000 in dam­ages by Jus­tice Li­onel Jones on Sep­tem­ber 11, 1997. He ap­pealed and the Court of Ap­peal in­creased the award to $235,000. Still dis­sat­is­fied, Crane ap­pealed to the Privy Coun­cil. Crane, in his per­son­al ca­pac­i­ty, went to the At­tor­ney Gen­er­al's of­fice and col­lect­ed the cheque for costs. No one can say what hap­pened to that cheque, but the at­tor­neys who rep­re­sent­ed him, were nev­er paid. They then filed a claim against Crane for their costs. But he died on Jan­u­ary 6, 2002, at the age of 71. His son Phillip was then sub­sti­tut­ed as the de­fen­dant. Crane's ap­peal to the Privy Coun­cil was nev­er heard. In Oc­to­ber 1990, act­ing on the rec­om­men­da­tion of the Ju­di­cial and Le­gal Ser­vice Com­mis­sion (JLSC), then Pres­i­dent Noor Has­sanali, sus­pend­ed Crane, who was then the most se­nior puisne judge. Has­sanali al­so or­dered that a tri­bunal be ap­point­ed to in­ves­ti­gate Crane's con­duct. The Pres­i­dent ap­point­ed a three-mem­ber tri­bunal com­pris­ing Jus­tices Evan Rees, Garvin Scott and Lennox Deyals­ingh.

Fol­low­ing his sus­pen­sion from the bench, Jus­tice Crane, a fa­ther of eight, filed a con­sti­tu­tion­al mo­tion, and an ap­pli­ca­tion for ju­di­cial re­view. Jus­tice Ivol Black­man dis­missed Crane's mo­tion and ju­di­cial re­view ap­pli­ca­tion in 1992. Jus­tice Crane ap­pealed, and the Court of Ap­peal ruled in his favour in No­vem­ber 1992, by a 2-1 ma­jor­i­ty. The JLSC took the mat­ter to the Privy Coun­cil. On Feb­ru­ary 14, 1994, the Privy Coun­cil ruled that Jus­tice Crane was wrong­ful­ly sus­pend­ed and or­dered the State to pay dam­ages and costs.