Sukul blames “hostile” Registrar, Bar Council for disbarment

Feb 19, 2014 News

---

– denies submitting fraudulent documents

Former Court of Appeal Judge, Rabi Sukul, who indicated that he will appeal his recent disbarment in the United Kingdom, has since accused a “hostile” British Court Registrar and Bar Council of targeting him, with a view to ending his career on the bench.
Sukul made contact with this publication yesterday and in his response to the recent revelations surrounding his disbarment also blamed a Solicitor for submitting, unknowing to him, draft grounds of appeal, which he did prepare but never signed.

He explained that in the United Kingdom, there are two different types of lawyers that handle a court case, a Solicitor and a Barrister. The Solicitor assembles all the case documents and then instructs the Barrister to defend the client in court. If the client is convicted, the Solicitor consults with the Barrister about the possibility of an appeal. The Barrister advises the Solicitor accordingly.
Solicitor
Sukul said the Solicitor who led to his ruin was Rubin Italia, who works with the Duncan Lewis Solicitors in the UK.
“Rubin Italia, and one other man, Master Egan, are responsible for the destruction of my dreams, and have brought untold misery upon my home, my family, my friends and the hundreds of people around the world who know, and have some regard for me.”
Sukul explained that after the client was convicted in December 2011 the Solicitor, Italia, queried with him if there were any obvious grounds of appeal.
“I told him that I have not identified any grounds as such…That was the end of that matter.”
He said that three months later, in March 2012, the Solicitor requested of him to draft two possible grounds of appeal.
Sukul pointed out that there was no question of him submitting those grounds to the Court of Appeal, because the 28 days deadline had long gone, and he did not submit an application for an extension
“I complied with my Solicitor’s request and drafted two possible grounds of appeal…Both grounds remain genuine and lawful.”
NO SIGNATURE
Sukul argues that he did not sign the document, as is required where Counsel is pursuing an appeal.
“It is impossible for me to have intended the unsigned document to be put before the Court or the client.”
He said that the Solicitor sent the document to the Court of Appeal without his knowledge or permission and that the Bar Council knew the facts are true, yet they promoted his disbarment.
In presenting his side of the story, Sukul said that on March 26, and April 20, 2012, a case officer from the Court of Appeal wrote to him asking for further information relating to the two draft grounds of appeal.
“Wrongly, and to my peril, I did not respond to those letters because I knew that I had not submitted any document to the Court of Appeal.”
He noted in retrospect that had he responded “I would have not faced this disaster.”
According to Sukul, on June 13, 2012, the two draft grounds were put before Justice MacKay sitting in the Court of Appeal, for his consideration and directions.
“Clearly if the grounds were false as alleged by Master Egan, Justice MacKay would have dismissed those two grounds instantly.”
PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITY
Sukul said what in fact transpired was that upon Judge MacKay’s directions the Registrar wrote to him requesting that he perfected the grounds of appeal and offered to send him the transcripts.
“It is a great travesty that I did not respond timely to the Registrar’s offer,” Sukul said.
“It is a major, and possibly significant procedural irregularity for a Judge of the Court of Appeal to give directions to perfect the two draft grounds submitted not by trial counsel but by the Solicitor, three months after the deadline had passed, and when there was no application for an extension of that deadline.”
Sukul said that for the next two months he heard nothing and believed that the matter had died administratively.
He said that to his surprise, in September 2012, a case worker from the Court of Appeal telephoned his chambers and told him that Master Egan required his attendance to explain the reason he had not responded to the Court of Appeal letters.
Sukul said he immediately wrote to the Court of Appeal and explained that he had no legal standing in the matter and further did not initiate appellate proceedings.
“The reality was that by then I was quite disturbed that the Court of Appeal was hounding me.”
According to Sukul, on October 19, 2012, he attended the Court of Appeal and “Master Egan was hostile and rude to me and I responded in like manner, much to his disapproval…I felt the wind of racism from Master Egan.”
According to Sukul, when he tried to explain the facts he was constantly interrupted by Master Egan, “he turned the truth around to castigate me.”
Sukul pointed out that “all I needed to do was to remind the Court of Appeal that I had not submitted the grounds of appeal, and in any event, I have no instructions from the Solicitor nor client to pursue an appeal…If I had done so I would not have been disbarred today…That is the truth of the matter. No more, no less.”
This he said was “the gravest mistake of my life”
ORCHESTRATED
He further charged that “Master Egan single-handedly orchestrated my disbarment… He is the Registrar of The Court of Appeal of England and Wales…He had treated me with disdain and disrespect…His behaviour gave me the first indication that he was pursuing me personally.”
According to Sukul, it was Master Egan who sent a complaint to the Bar Council, which alleged that he drafted false grounds of appeal and misled the client into believing he had grounds of appeal, “when in fact I knew he did not…The truth is I never ever spoke to the client about an appeal…Master Egan also alleged that I misled the Court of Appeal.”
Sukul said that in the correspondence that flowed between himself and the Bar Council he requested that Master Egan and Rubin Italia be called as witnesses.
He said that the Bar Council instead reacted with force to his request and accepted statements from both men and stated that neither would be required to attend the hearing.
“How could I realistically cross-examine and discredit two statements?” Sukul asked, and conceded that he reacted with some aggression in the correspondence which did not please the establishment at all.
“In the end they accepted the facts set out in the two statements, the makers of which were never tendered at the hearing…Such is a true example of British justice that has all but destroyed me.”
UNREPRESENTED
According to Sukul, the Bar Council convened a hearing on February 3, 2014, in his absence, meaning he was unrepresented.
“They were in effect Judge and jury in their own court and disbarred me in my absence…I am advised that this is unheard of… I could never have imagined such a decision was even possible, and for that reason I did not inform the Chancellor (Carl Singh) of the pending proceedings.”
Sukul indicated to this publication that he believes that the fact that “I had formally retired as a member of the Bar and the legal profession in January 2014, terminated the Bar Council jurisdiction over me…Evidently, these people had their own agenda.”
Sukul said too, that in his research, “I have not discovered anything like this happening to any other Barrister in the UK.”
He said that what he did discover is that some years ago, a famous and notable Guyanese Barrister Rudy Narayan was habitually hostile to the Bar Council and they eventually disbarred him.
“That is the establishment of the UK…That is how the establishment can systematically dismantle and destroy you… No wonder I strived so hard and for so long to leave this god-forsaken place and return to my homeland, soon after which the system got their pound of flesh.”
LETTER TO THE AG
The disbarred lawyer said too, “There is one further piece of evidence that I wish to refer to… Within hours of the disbarment, the Bar Council wrote to the Attorney General of Guyana telling him that they know I am a Judge in the Court of Appeal and I have been disbarred in the UK…They said nothing about my formal retirement.”
He noted that the Bar Council is fully aware that the disbarment is not final or absolute, and subject to an appeal in three courts of law in the UK.
“Their rapid letter to the Attorney General is the epitome of vindictiveness and designed to terminate my career on the bench…They have succeeded in their endeavour.”

---

---