Anthony: There was material distinction between 1946 Joyce case and Douglas' matter

Attorney Sylvester Anthony, one of the lawyers who represented Leader of the Opposition, the Rt. Hon. Dr Denzil L. Douglas in the Dominica Diplomatic Passport case said it was very clear that the Timothy Harris-led Unity Government (THUG) relied heavily on the interpretation in the House of Lords ruling by Lord Jowitt in the William Joyce v the Director of Public Prosecution a 1948.

"It formed the basis of their confidence that they would have succeeded. The judgment reflects a thorough discussion by His Lordship, about Joyce," said Anthony in response to a question from Kyss FM's Sean Seabrooks.

Anthony referred the media to paragraph 102 of the judgment by His Lordship Trevor Ward QC in which His Lordship made it very clear that there was a material distinction to be drawn between the facts of Joyce and what Justice Ward described elsewhere in the judgment as the unique facts of the Attorney General v Denzil Douglas case.

"It was a specific finding that the Judge made. That unlike Joyce who had a previous allegiance, having resided in the Kings Realm for some 24 years, there was no evidence before him that Dr Douglas prior to obtaining the diplomatic passport, had any allegiance whatsoever ever to the Commonwealth of Dominica. That was a material distinction in those two cases and formed one of the bases why the Judge refused to apply Joyce in this case," said Anthony.

Anticipating that the ruling would be in his favour, Prime Minister Harris in a statement from his office said "the legal team representing the government, led by Mr. Douglas Mendes SC, is confident of a positive outcome in the matter based on the precedent set in the 1940s judgement in the Joyce (Appellant) vs Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent) case of February 1, 1946, in the House of Lords in England."

The statement from Dr Harris' office also quoted Attorney General Vincent Byron as stating: "the Joyce case is very clear that where an American citizen that was living in England had presented himself with a British passport and the House of Lords determined that the use of this passport showed that he had protection of the Crown in England and therefore the court determined that that was akin to having allegiance, and so our case is based on that very strong precedent."

But Justice Ward ruled Dr Douglas "was not required to and took no oath or affirmation of allegiance to the Commonwealth of Dominica in order to obtain the diplomatic passport.

"Indeed, the evidence before me is that the executive policy has deliberately not imposed a reciprocal duty of allegiance on the holder of a diplomatic passport even though the state offers its protection to the holder when abroad. I find that the special and distinct policy regime carved out for the diplomatic passport is of significance. It must mean something that the executive has deliberately not required any oath or affirmation or other demonstrable sign of allegiance or residence required as a condition precedent to the issuance of the diplomatic passport," said Justice Ward.

Justice Ward further ruled that Dr Douglas is not a natural born or naturalised or registered citizen of the Commonwealth of Dominica.

"He was not and is not resident in Dominica; he did not apply for and did not obtain Dominican citizenship," said Justice Ward.