News hit the airwaves last Thursday evening, August 31st, 2023, as a letter from Leon Lake’s parents addressed to the Acting Governor, Paul Candler, Premier Dr. Ellis Webster and the Representative for Road South, Mr. Haydn Hughes, was read on Klass FM Radio Station, refuting the Attorney General’s dismissal of the case concerning the Honorable Minister of Sustainability, Innovation and the Environment, Quincia Gumbs-Marie, and Leon Lake.
The May 23rd 2023 altercation involving the two individuals, took place at a restaurant in South Hill. Mrs. Gumbs-Marie was captured on a video recording uttering strong expletives and threatening to kill Mr. Lake and bury him.
The matter had engendered some degree of public out-cry on the island, calling for the authorities to take some measure of action against the Minister for her conduct. However, after the matter had been taken over by Attorney General, Mr. Dwight Horsford, he made the surprising decision to discontinue the case.
On the morning of Friday, September 1st, Mr. Lake’s lawyer, Mr. Devin Hodge, along with Mr. Lake, himself, took to the radio waves on Klass FM, to apprise the public of the Attorney General’s decision.
“Regrettably, on August 28th,” Mr. Hodge said, “Mr. Lake and I were the recipients of a notice of discontinuance which was signed by the Attorney General of Anguilla. It is headed ‘Notice of Takeover and Discontinuance of All Criminal Proceedings’ and it is pursuant to Section 34 of the Constitution of Anguilla. This notice is in respect of Mr. Leon Lake and all matters that arose from the incident that occurred at Tasty’s Restaurant on May 23rd.”
“We do not accept this decision by the Attorney General at all,” Mr. Hodge said, “as this is one matter that has been in the ‘public’s interest’ for some time. We believe that there are very important considerations that were not regarded in arriving at this decision.”
“Notwithstanding,” Mr. Hodge said, “Section 34 of the Constitution gives the Attorney General the powers to take over any criminal prosecution and to discontinue that prosecution.”
“Persons had expressed an interest in there being a private prosecution on the case. But a private prosecution would not in any way remove the power of the Attorney General to take over and discontinue a case. The same exercise of his power would have been open to him if the case were under private prosecution. And now, as we know, following an investigation of which I am dissatisfied, the AG has filled a discontinuation of the matter,” Mr. Hodge noted.
“Because the Constitution is set up in this way, there must be some recognition for the separation of powers that is intended to exist. When the Attorney General functions in this capacity,” he said, “he is functioning as an Executive Officer with quasi-judicial powers. So it is not a matter of simply approaching a court to say you as the Judiciary needs to step in and review the AG’s decision. This is a matter of legal doctrine. We understand that separation of powers ensures checks and balances in the society.”
“But in a case like this, it is our view that we must seek to ask of the court to treat this matter as one with ‘exceptional circumstances’,” Mr. Hodge said. “This is our viewpoint, because one must bear in mind that a Judicial Review of the Attorney General’s decision is an exceptional remedy. And that is because the Law has made accommodation for the separation of powers – between the Executive where the AG stands and the Judiciary.”
He explained: “If the Attorney General’s decision making can always be subjected to the Judiciary intervening and saying, ‘this wrong we don’t agree,’ it would mean that his role would be ineffective. Granted, his role is given much accommodation in Law.
“However, there are avenues in which one can pursue argument through the court in respect of this being an ‘exceptional case’ seeing that this matter caused significant public interest, and there is no doubt that persons wanted to see an outcome that was not to be usurped by the power of the Executive.”
“People expected that there would be a ‘day in court’,” he said. “And when the AG took this decision, what he did was to take away the right of access to the court that Mr. Lake has. He took away any availability of a remedy for Mr. Lake who had suffered a wrong. The perpetrator of that wrong is the beneficiary of a discontinuance of this case by the Executive. And the perpetrator has not been brought before a court so that the court can independently assess the facts of this matter.”
He said that presently he is assessing the way forward with regards to a Judicial Review. In such a case, he said that persons need to be mindful of the fact that a Judicial Review is not just a matter of right, but one must be able to persuade the court that the Attorney General should be called upon to justify the decision that he has made.
In the meantime, during the weekly Government Press Conference on Monday 4th September, 2023, when the Honourable Premier Dr. Webster was asked whether he will respond to the letter from Mr. Lake’s parents, relative to the Attorney General’s discontinuance on the matter, he answered in the affirmative.
“Yes, I will respond to the parents,” he said. “But I do think that the Attorney General has the power, given to him by the Constitution, to discontinue any matter that he deems fit to discontinue. Essentially that is how I will respond.”
