High Court judge Raulston L. A. Glasgow has quashed the appointment of Eddy Ventose, a Saint Lucian academic and jurist, as a Justice of Appeal of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (ECSC) with effect from January 8, 2024.
This means the ECSC decided that the lead judge who reversed the original decision in the COVID-19 vaccine mandate case in St Vincent and the Grenadines (SVG) was not a justice of appeal at the time of the February 2025 ruling.
Justice Ventose wrote the 2-1 majority decision announced on February 12, 2025, which overturned the March 2023 ruling by then-High Court Judge Esco Henry, who is now an appeal judge. Judge Henry had found the mandate unconstitutional and void.
Justice Glasgow, in a written judgment issued last week, said the appointment was unconstitutional, null and void because Justice Ventose did not meet the requirement of 15 years of legal practice.
The vaccine mandate case is awaiting a final decision from the Privy Council in London, the highest court for St Vincent and the Grenadines.
James A. L. Bristol KC brought the case, arguing that the Judicial and Legal Services Commission acted unlawfully because Justice Ventose had not “so practised” as an advocate for the required 15 years when he was promoted 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 15 years and have “so practised” for that duration.
The court reviewed Justice Ventose’s career and found he fell short of the required 15 years. Even with a broad definition of litigation work, Justice Glasgow counted only 12 years and 9 months, including his time as a High Court Judge and Master.
Justice Glasgow said there was no sign the JLSC acted in bad faith or unfairly. He explained that the mistake was due to an honest but incorrect reading of the law. He also praised Justice Ventose’s “widely recognised legal accomplishments” and made it clear the ruling was not about his skills or knowledge.
