Hosein v Ramnarine-Hill (Trinidad and Tobago)

Professional disciplinary bodies must observe high standards of fairness and provide a fair opportunity to answer misconduct allegations. Procedural fairness does not require admission of evidence withheld in breach of disclosure directions. A committee with power to regulate its procedure may exclude a late document where its provenance is unexplained and its production appears tactical. An appellate court should not admit a new factual point on appeal and should not interfere with concurrent findings of primary fact unless the limited circumstances justifying departure are shown. Evidence must be assessed as a whole. A client’s possible knowledge of the true position from another source does not, without more, excuse an attorney’s deliberate misrepresentation. Serious disciplinary proceedings may also require consideration of interim suspension powers pending final determination.

An attorney-at-law was found by a statutory Disciplinary Committee to have forged or procured forged insurance offer letters and to have misrepresented the settlement offers to his client. The committee excluded a later-produced letter which had not been disclosed under its directions, and referred the matter for consideration of suspension or removal.

The Court of Appeal of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago dismissed the appeal, holding that the committee’s findings were supported by the evidence and were neither perverse nor based on a misunderstanding. Before the Privy Council, the appellant challenged exclusion of the letter and the treatment of his defence. The central issues were whether the letter should be admitted or considered on appeal and whether the concurrent factual findings were unsafe.

The Board dismissed the preliminary application to admit the excluded letter and dismissed the appeal.

1. Exclusion of evidence. Disciplinary systems must meet high standards of fairness and provide appropriate procedural safeguards. Those safeguards include fair opportunities to present evidence and argument. However, fairness did not require admission of the letter in this case. Under rule 9(6) of the Fourth Schedule to the Legal Profession Act, the Disciplinary Committee had broad power to regulate its proceedings, including document production and the admission of evidence. The letter had not been disclosed as directed, its provenance was unexplained, its production appeared tactical and intended to surprise the witness, and the appellant had not appealed its exclusion. His later explanation had not been tested by cross-examination. The exclusion was therefore not perverse. The Board also declined to entertain a new factual point on appeal, referring to Baker v R [1975] AC 774.
2. Review of factual findings. The Board applied the settled practice stated in Philomen Dean v Chanka Bhim [2019] UKPC 10. It does not interfere with concurrent findings of primary fact unless the appellant establishes the limited special category justifying departure. Grounds presented as errors of law or principle cannot avoid that practice where they are, in substance, attacks on fact-finding. The Disciplinary Committee was entitled to prefer the complainant’s evidence, and the Court of Appeal was entitled to uphold its conclusions. The evidence had to be viewed as a seamless web rather than by isolating selected parts. The client’s alleged knowledge of the true offers from another source did not excuse the appellant’s conduct.
3. Additional observation. The Board stated that, if the absence persisted, the lack of power to impose an interim suspension pending final determination should be reviewed so that appropriate interim sanctions could be imposed in serious cases.

1. Privy Council ([2021] UKPC 28): dismissed the appeal from the Court of Appeal.
2. Court of Appeal of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago: dismissed the appellant’s appeal from the Disciplinary Committee, upholding its factual findings and treatment of the evidence.