In the Matter of Three Appeals arising out of Orders made in the High Court of Kiribati [1988] KICA 4 (15 April 1988)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF KIRIBATI

IN THE MATTER of three appeals arising out of orders made in the High Court of Kiribati in High Court Civil Case No. 17/86 on 24 November 1986

Criminal Appeal:

BETWEEN

BRIAN STEWART ORME
Appellant

AND

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Respondent

Criminal Appeal:

BETWEEN

COMPASS ROSE ENTERPRISES LIMITED
Appellant

AND

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Respondent

Civil Appeal:

BETWEEN

COMPASS ROSE ENTERPRISES LIMITED
Appellant

AND

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL and KIRIBATI INSURANCE INCORPORATION
Respondents

R. Koaru for the Appellant
T. Tabane for the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 15th April, 1988
Delivery of Ruling: 15th April, 1988

RULING OF THE COURT
(Gibbs V.P., Frost, Donne, Dillon, and Mitchell J.J.A.)

This is a motion by Mr Orme seeking orders which would have the practical effect of allowing Mr Bell, a barrister and solicitor of New Zealand, to represent him in appeals pending before this Court.

Mr Bell was formerly admitted as a lawyer in Kiribati, but as a result of an amendment made to the Lawyers' Admission Rules in 1986 his name was removed from the roll, and he was subsequently declared an illegal immigrant. He attempted to begin proceedings for certiorari and mandamus to quash the declaration making him a prohibited immigrant. To that end a firm of New Zealand solicitors, Webb Ross & Co, sent a letter to the Registrar enclosing the necessary papers. The Registrar refused to accept them because Webb Rose & Co was not entitled to act for or represent a litigant in the High court of Kiribati. Of course, Mr Bell could then have instructed a lawyer admitted to practice in Kiribati to act on his behalf, or he could have sent the papers himself for lodgement (for a litigant is entitled to act for himself) but he did not take either course.

The submissions made on behalf of Mr Orme raise a number of serious matters for consideration. It is of fundamental importance that a party to litigation should be entitled to proper representation in proceedings before the Court, whether the other party to those proceedings is the Government or a private individual. If it were established in proper proceedings that the amendment to the Lawyers' Admission Rules, or the declaration that Mr Bell is a prohibited immigrant, was made for the purpose of preventing Mr Orme, or the company of which he is a Director, Compass Rose Enterprises Limited, from obtaining proper representation in the civil proceeding which are pending, that would seem enough to result in the invalidity of the amendment and the declaration. But it cannot be assumed that those actions were taken for that collateral purpose, since the questions of fact that arise have not been examined after a trial of the issues.

This matter now arises in relation to the three associated appeals against sentences for contempt imposed on Mr Orme and Compass Rose. This Court has been supplied with written submissions on behalf of Mr Orme and Compass Rose in those matters. We shall of course take pains to ensure that justice is done in these appeals. If we consider that the presence of Mr Bell is necessary to put properly the case for the appellants, we shall consider the matter anew. If, however, we consider that we can reach a proper decision without the assistance of Mr Bell, it will not be necessary to decide whether Mr Orme has standing to bring the present proceedings, or to go into the questions of evidence that it would be necessary to consider if the challenge to the validity of the regulations and declaration was allowed to proceed. In the circumstances, the proper course will be to allow the motion to stand over until such date as it may be restored by order of this Court.

Vice President
Judge of Appeal
Judge of Appeal
Judge of Appeal
Judge of Appeal