PRIVY COUNCIL

                 De Verteuil

                 Vs.

                               Knaggs and another
(Earl Loreburn, CJ, Lord Dunedin, Lord Sumner and Lord Parmoor. JJ)

                 21.3.1918

                 JUDGMENT

Lord Parmoor J.

1. The appellant has been for several years the owner of the La Gloria estate in the
ward of Upper Caroni, in the Island of Trinidad. The respondent the Honourable
Samuel William Knaggs, C. M. G., was at all material dates the acting Governor of
the Colony of Trinidad and Tobago, and the respondent the Honourable Arnauld de
Boissiere was at all material dates the head of the Immigration Department of the said
Colony and the Protector of immigrants. The question involved in the appeal is
whether an order made by the acting Governor for the transfer of the indentures of the
immigrants indentured on the said La Gloria estate is a valid and effective order. This
question was answered in the negative by Blackwood Wright, J. and in the affirmative
by the Supreme Court sitting in appeal. The contention of the appellant is that the
order of Black-wood Wright, J., was correct, and that the order of the Supreme Court
should be reversed.

2. The Immigration Ordinance No. 161, as amended by subsequent ordinances,
contains the provisions applicable to the introduction and employment of immigrants
in the Colony of Trinidad and Tobago. section 203 provides :

       "If at any time it appears to the Governor on sufficient ground shown to his
       satisfaction that all or any of the immigrants indentured on any plantation
       should be removed therefrom it shall be lawful for him to transfer the indentures
       of such immigrants for the remainder of their respective terms of service to any
       other employer who may be willing to accept their services and pay the
       remaining indenture fees.
3. It was under this section of the ordinance that the Governor made the order to which
the appellant takes objection. There is no doubt that if the acting Governor did act in
good faith within the limits of the authority conferred by the ordinance he is fully
protected, and no Court has any power to interfere. The case of the appellant as stated
in the endorsement of his writ of summons, is that the order was not made under the
proper and statutory exercise of the discretion vested in the acting Governor by
Section 203 of the Ordinance, and is consequently null and of no effect. It is clearly
within the power and jurisdiction of the municipal Courts to entertain this question and
to determine whether the acting Governor, in making the order, which the appellant
impugns, acted within the limits of the powers conferred on him by a municipal
ordinance.

4. Sect. 203 of the Ordinance empowers the Governor to transfer the indentures of the
immigrants "on sufficient ground shown to his satisfaction, that all or any of the
immigrants indentured on any plantation should be removed therefrom." The same
section empowers the Protector of Immigrants to make a temporary transfer "pending
the decision of the Governor," but it is under the earlier portion of the section that the
present case has arisen. The Ordinance does not prescribe any special form of
procedure, but there is an obvious implication that some form of inquiry must be made
such as will enable the Governor fairly to determine whether a sufficient ground has
been shown to his satisfaction for the removal of indentured immigrants. The
particular form of inquiry must depend on the conditions under which the discretion is
exercised in any particular case, and no general rule applicable to all conditions can be
formulated. In the particular case under appeal the acting Governor exercised his
discretion on a complaint made against the appellant by the Protector of Immigrants
with regard to the treatment and condition of indentured immigrants on his La Gloria
estate. What is the procedure which in such a case the law will imply when the
Legislature is silent? The acting Governor was not called upon to give a decision on
an appeal between parties, and it is not suggested that he holds the position of a Judge,
or that the appellant is entitled to insist on the forms used in ordinary judicial
procedure. It would not be possible to follow such procedure, since the acting
Governor has no power to examine witnesses or to administer an oath. There is,
moreover, no allegation that the acting Governor did not act throughout in perfect good
faith.

5. On the other hand, the acting Governor could not properly carry through the duty
entrusted to him without making some inquiry whether sufficient grounds had been
shown to his satisfaction that immigrants indentured on the La Gloria estate of the
appellant should be removed. Their Lordships are of opinion that in making such an
inquiry there is, apart from special circumstances, a duty of giving to any person
against whom the complaint is made a fair opportunity to make any relevant statement
which he may desire to bring forward and a fair opportunity to correct or controvert
any relevant statement brought forward to his prejudice. It must, however, be borne in
mind that there may be special circumstances which would justify a Governor, acting
in good faith, to take action even if he did not give an opportunity to the person
affected to make any relevant statement, or to correct or controvert any relevant
statement brought forward to his prejudice. For instance, a decision may have to be
given on an emergency, when promptitude is of great importance; or there might be
obstructive conduct on the part of the person affected. Their Lordships, however, do
not find any suggestion of such conditions in the case under appeal. Moreover, in this
case the Supreme Court, on the evidence before them has found that the acting
Governor did give the appellant a fair opportunity of being heard and of meeting
statements made to his prejudice, and, for reasons given later, their Lordships fully
concur in this finding.

6. In Board of Education v. Rice1, the question raised was whether the Board of
Education had properly exercised their statutory duty to decide on appeal a question
between parties. The statement of principle made in that case by the Lord Chancellor
(Earl Loreburn) is, however, in the opinion of their Lordships, applicable to the
conditions under which the decision in this case was given by the acting Governor :

       "In such cases the Board of Education will have to ascertain the law and also to
       ascertain the facts. I need not add that in doing either they must act in good
       faith and fairly listen to both sides, for that is a duty lying upon every one who
       decides anything. But I do not think they are bound to treat such a question as
       though it were a trial......They can obtain information in any way they think
       best, always giving a fair opportunity to those who are parties in the controversy
       for correcting or contradicting any relevant statement prejudicial to their view."
       (Cf. Spackman v. Plumstead District Board of Works2 and Local Government
       Board v. Arlidge3,
7. The only remaining question to consider is whether the acting Governor did comply
with the requirements of a fair inquiry.

8. On 16th December, 1915, the acting Governor ex parte and affording no
opportunity to the appellant to make any answer or explanation, made an order for the
removal of the indentured immigrants from the La Gloria estate and for the transfer of
their indentures to some other employer. The first intimation which the appellant
received was in a letter of 20th December, 1915, from the Protector of Immigrants to
the appellant's manager. This letter sets out under four heads the complaints made by
the Protector of Immigrants with regard to the indentured immigrants on the La Gloria
estate. The complaints are : (1.) That they were not receiving proper medical attention.
(2.) That they were dissatisfied because of their isolated condition. (3.) That the
number of convictions was high. (4.) That the wages earned were comparatively
small.

9. After the receipt of this letter the appellant and his manager sought and obtained a
personal interview with the acting Governor on 23rd December 1915. There is some
discrepancy as to the statements made at this interview, but the material factor is that
the appellant and his manager were granted a fair opportunity of placing before the
acting Govern or their answer to the allegations made in the letter of the Protector of
Immigrants. At this interview a question was raised as to the accuracy of certain
figures, and subsequently on 27th December, 1915, the appellant's manager wrote to
the Colonial Secretary enclosing a copy of the register of cases before the Magistrates
for the La Gloria estate from 1st October, 1914 to 30th December 1915 and giving
particulars tending to show that the authorities had arrived at their figures on a wrong
basis and that further inquiry was necessary. On 7th January 1916, the Colonial
Secretary wrote to the appellant's manager stating that the letter of 27th December had
received careful consideration, but "in view of the report of the Protector of
Immigrants, His Excellency regrets that he does not feel justified in cancelling the
order made for the removal of the indentured immigrants from the estate in question."
After further correspondence the Colonial Secretary on 21st January, 1916, wrote to
the appellant's manager, and stated that on the figures submitted, "His Excellency saw
no cause to cancel the order made." There appears to have been a further investigation
of the figures, and finally on 15th March, 1916, the Protector of Immigrants wrote to
the appellant's manager that the acting Governor "has decided that the immigrants on
the La Gloria estate must be removed therefrom and transferred to another estate, the
manager of which is willing to accept them." It appears to their Lordships that the
correspondence, to which reference has been made, shows that the acting Governor
did not proceed without giving fair notice to the appellant of the charges made against
him, or without giving him a fair opportunity to make an answer to such charges. It is
no part of the duty of a Court to review the discretion exercised by the acting
Governor, and the evidence directed to this issue is, in the opinion of their Lordships,
irrelevant. It was argued on behalf of the appellants that the validity of the order
should be tested either as on 16th December 1915, or at the latest as on 21st January,
1916, but there is no reason why the acting Governor may not at any time review or
alter a decision previously given, and it may be his duty to do so, in the prudent
exercise of his discretion, on a further consideration of all the relevant factors after full
inquiry.

10. For there reasons the appeal fails, and their Lordships will humbly advise His
Majesty to dismiss the same with costs.

Appeal dismissed.

Cases Referred.

   1. [1911] A.C. 179
   2. [1885] 10. App. Cas. 229
   3. [1915] A.C. 120.