In a constitutional ruling, the High Court of Grenada has overturned the appointment of Justice Eddy David Ventose as a Justice of Appeal of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (ECSC). Ventose who overturned the ruling in the COVID-19 vaccine mandate case in St. Vincent was not a justice of appeal at the time of the February 2025 ruling, the court found.
Justice Raulston L. A. Glasgow, presiding over the matter, declared the appointment unconstitutional, null, and void, finding that Justice Ventose did not meet the mandatory 15-year practice requirement stipulated by the region’s governing laws.
The case was brought by James A. L. Bristol KC, who filed an application for judicial review seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the January 8, 2024, appointment. Bristol contended that the Judicial and Legal Services Commission (JLSC) acted unlawfully because Justice Ventose had not “so practised” as an advocate for the requisite aggregate period of fifteen years at the time he was elevated to the appellate bench.
Under Section 5 of the West Indies Associated States Supreme Court Order 1967 (the Courts Order), an individual is not qualified for appointment as a Justice of Appeal unless they have been a judge of a court of unlimited jurisdiction for at least five years, or have been qualified to practise as an advocate for at least fifteen years and have “so practised” for that duration. Both parties agreed that Justice Ventose did not meet the five-year judicial service requirement, leaving his eligibility dependent on his years of practice.
The core of the dispute centered on the interpretation of the term “advocate”. The JLSC and Justice Ventose argued for an “updating construction” of the law. They suggested that in the modern era of fused legal professions, “advocacy” should be broadly defined to include “law-related activities” such as legal research, teaching, advising on law, and “litigation management” rather than just appearing in court.
However, Justice Glasgow rejected this expansive definition. While the judge agreed with the JLSC that modern advocacy includes the preparation of pleadings and witness statements—activities beyond mere oral arguments—he ruled that it cannot be stretched to include purely academic roles or legal scholarship that has no connection to the conduct of litigation. The court found that the framers of the Constitution deliberately chose the term “advocate” to ensure that appellate judges possessed substantial practical experience in courtroom proceedings and the management of legal cases.
The court’s forensic examination of Justice Ventose’s professional history revealed a significant shortfall in the required 15-year aggregate. Even using a broader definition of litigation-related work, Justice Glasgow calculated that Ventose’s experience amounted to only 12 years and 9 months when including credits for his time as a High Court Judge and Master.
The calculation was further impacted by Justice Ventose’s lack of practising certificates in Barbados for several years. Under the Barbados Legal Profession Act, an attorney is prohibited from practising law without a valid certificate. The evidence showed that Ventose held a certificate in Barbados only for the years 2014 and 2018. Consequently, the court found he could only be credited with a total of four years and nine months of actual practice as an advocate, far short of the 15-year constitutional mandate.
Despite the ruling, Justice Glasgow emphasized that there was no evidence the JLSC acted in bad faith or capriciously. He noted that the error arose from an honest, though incorrect, interpretation of the law. The judge also praised Justice Ventose’s “widely recognised legal accomplishments” and clarified that the ruling was not a reflection of his competence or legal knowledge.
Crucially, the court applied the “de facto officer doctrine” to protect the administration of justice. This legal principle ensures that the judgments delivered and appeals heard by Justice Ventose during his tenure remain valid and legally binding, despite the defect in his appointment. This prevents a collapse of the legal system or the need for dozens of cases to be reheard.
The court granted an order of certiorari quashing the JLSC’s decision to appoint Justice Ventose and issued a formal declaration that the appointment was null and void. No order was made as to costs. This ruling is expected to provide significant clarity for the JLSC regarding future judicial appointments and the strict adherence required to constitutional qualification criteria.
