Harre CJ
IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS
HOLDEN AT GEORGE TOWN, GRAND CAYMAN
CAUSE NO. 92/95
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPLY FOR AN ORDER OF CERTIORARI AND PROHIBITION IN REGINA V. BARRY VICTOR RANDALL
CHARGE NO. 5840-5848/91
BETWEEN:
BARRY VICTOR RANDALL
APPLICANT
AND:
THE MAGISTRATE SITTING AT GEORGE TOWN, GRAND CAYMAN
RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
The history of this matter is long. Mr. Randall faces criminal charges in relation to an enterprise called Cayman Capital Trust Company and is a respondent in civil proceedings relating to the same company. Injunction 230 re obtained in the civil proceedings over his assets, subject to their full rigor in respect of his income. The relevance of the injunctions, in the action which still subsists /89, as varied by an order dated 23rd September 1994 is this—
"IT IS ORDERED THAT—
Barry Victor Randall be:
(1) entitled to draw his normal living expenses not exceeding CI$500 per week from future earnings, provided that a special account be opened and that all future earnings be paid into the account. Copies of bank statements and lodgments to be provided to the Liquidator.
(2)
(a) . . . .
(b) . . . .
(c) . . . .
(d) legal expenses and disbursements in relation to Cause 230/89 and/or any criminal proceedings against Barry V. Randall within the jurisdiction of the Cayman Islands.
Clearly the injunction relates only to the funds in the special account for future earnings. Other assets remain frozen.
There has been correspondence over some months between Mr. Randall, his attorney, own Counsel and the Magistrate about his legal aid. All I propose to say about it in relation to this application for leave to sue or certiorari and prohibition is this. The learned Magistrate, as the date set for a preliminary inquiry into the criminal matters, a legal aid certificate in the standard form P.P. 3. Beneath his signature the following note:
subsidised legal aid granted for two counsel subject to an undertaking by the defendant to disclose by affidavit and reimburse such sums as are found by the court to have come available to him following the order of the Grand Court in Cause No. 230/89 dated 23rd September 1994.
I interpret the meaning and effect of this certificate in the light
following way. Mr. Randall has been granted full legal aid for one
counsel. He is not in danger of being unrepresented at the
preliminary enquiry for lack of legal aid. If he instructs two counsel
the undertaking in the footnote to the legal aid certificate is
implicit. If, as he says, the issue of the certificate has been held
up for lack of his signature on such an undertaking, that is
misconceived. The certificate should issue forthwith.
With regnt to Mr. Randall's second complaint - that counsel will not
now in a that i have sufficient time to prepare for the preliminary
enquiry - that eves a matter for an application at or before the
beginning and enquiry. It is a matter for decision by the learned
Magistrate app of t would be quite inappropriate for this court to give
leave foave th lication for judicial review which would, whatever its
outcome, ready a e effect of removing that jurisdiction of the
Magisstrad elation to the hearing set for 27th March.
That is an adjourned hearing and the matters are on their face
complicati on with an international aspect. All these are factors
as well a tosition of Mr. Randall himself, which are eminently
sui ted f c elation agistrate, before whom the whole matter is, to
determine )，230
Mr. Randal ges that the Magistrate misdirected himself as to the
legal and cal effect of the order dated 23rd September 1994 made
in Cause at ar/89. Because it affects the scope of the undertaking
by him in h yon to the instructing of two counsel I add to what I
is all
l
or ed
have already said - that the relaxation of its terms relates only to
what is in the special income account - my view that the undertaking
is clearly not intended to, and does not, carry the meaning that Mr.
Randall must turn over everything in that account to reimburse the
legal aid fund, even at the expense of the basic needs of his family
and himself. That is absurd.
Mr. Randall is free to use the proceeds of that account for any of the
purposes dealt out in the order as varied. Consequently the undertaking
given is in crst effect, if any, unless Mr. Randall achieves a very
significant increase in his present income.
I conclude that Mr. Randall is in no peril, unless he chooses to be,
of being opri presented at the preliminary enquiry, and any argument as
to the ap sh, ilteness of a further adjournment can be fully canvassed
before the epbsidied Magistrate. Moreover, I see no reason why the
phrase "advanced legal aid" advanced should not, as a matter of
plain Eng. o include legal aid which is subject to a contingent
liability as well as legal aid which is subject to an upper
limit.
1995
For all reasons, the writ of certiorari and prohibition do not
need to be ed in this case and leave to proceed on that basis is
refused.