[Editor’s note: Insofar as is possible, the pages below have been arranged in chronological order. The pdf on the page for BB-31 & 32 includes the pages in numerical order.]
—–
BB-31-a-58
Lionel Luckhoo letter to Paula Adams, 9 September 1977 [handwritten]
Paula
This is a cutting from a highly reputable English newspaper, the Observer, dated Sunday 4th September 1977.
I feel that unless something is done by means of initiating action against such newspapers, the Bishop will be seriously prejudiced in the eyes of the public.
Already a number of persons have been saying at the news about Jim Jones is not good & has he taken steps to stop this defamation? You should let Gary [Temple attorney Charles Garry] know.
—–
BB-31-a-59
[Copy of referenced newspaper article]
—–
BB-31-a-53
Lionel Luckhoo letter to Paula Adams, 19 September 1977 [handwritten]
[Letterhead of Lionel Luckhoo]
19th September, 1977
Dear Paula,
Re: Summons – Joinder – Setting Aside Orders
I have just had a conference with my brother Lloyd (a Senior Counsel), Junior Counsel & McDoom & Co. (Solicitors).
We have settled the affidavit. The Summons is now being prepared.
The other lawyers discussed with me fees. Up to now the only fees incurred are those for Solicitor’s preliminary work, investigation and disbursements.
My services up to the present stage are freely given indeed happily given. When all is finished at the end of the line, I may send in some small charge.
I told the lawyers to fix a fee inclusive of all disbursements, and including the Solicitor’s charges which are incurred. A fee of $8500 (G) has been fixed, and if you are agreeable and pay in this amount to Luckhoo & Luckhoo then we would have the firm issue their cheques.
Normally we just send in accounts – but I couldn’t do that to you, hence I have sought to spell it out.
/s/ Lionel
—–
BB-31-a-14 – a-17
Undated handwritten notes by Lionel Luckhoo
Notes made at continued hearing
Lionel Luckhoo: Objects to affidavit filed by Grace Stoen which seeks to cure a basic irregularity.
We asked for 4 Orders – the first was the joinder of Touchette. This was granted. The other orders are based on:
- No affidavit by Mother
- Affidavit by one Haas – who has no accompanying [illegible word] – who is not entitled to possession of custody of child
- If 2 is accepted he did not show urgency
- Transgression of all basic principles for the grant of habeas corpus
- Bad Service – no service – Substituted service ineffectual
Hughes now seeks to regularize and cure fundamental irregularity re: points 1 & 2 above
Hughes: At any stage the irregularity which is not basic re Authority can be cured
Bishop J: Grants admission of affidavit and asked if Authority to Touchette is withdrawn by Grace, does this not really matter to an end
LAL [Luckhoo]: It certainly does not. We must look at what was before the Judge when he made the Orders which we claim are a Nullity
Hughes: Touchette’s Application to Court was dated 5 September 77. Grace Stoen rescinded her Authority to Touchette on Thursday, August 77.
Bishop J: When was Touchette notified?
Hughes: 14 October 1977
LAL: And this was after Touchette was joined
Bishop J: At the moment then there is no right for Touchette to have the child.
Hughes: She claims she had custody of the child when she swore to her affidavit and we feel the child must be brought to court by her now.
LAL: We are getting into a saga & losing sight of the issues. Touchette is joined by the Court in her application she asked for orders declaring the original orders agst [against] Jim Jones be deemed a nullity because of procedural irregularities. We have all addressed the court at length and it is for the Court to decide. This I asked the Court to do now.
Hughes: I have other points to add.
Bishop J: Do you wish to have any further affidavits, Sir L. [Lionel] – by Touchette in answer to Grace Stoen
LAL: No. I do not deem it necessary.
Bishop J: I feel you should think about it & then decide.
Hughes then continues his address, asking for an Order against Joyce Touchette for the immediate delivery of the infant to her. Court should make this Order.
Bishop J: Now that she is joined you say she is subject to Orders which I can make?
Hughes: Yes.
Bishop J: Well we will hear Sir Lionel on this later
Hearing will continue day after day thereafter, starting Tuesday next
My personal observations
The Judge is misled.
a. He ought not to entertain Grace Stoen’s Affidavit which confirms & states that Haas had authority to make the affidavit on her behalf.
b. He loses sight of the fact that we are questioning his Orders made against Jim Jones because those Orders were made on the basis of imperfect applications (i.e. the new application filed). The judge stated that he is not hearing the Nisi application for habeas corpus against Joyce Touchette, as it came up before another Judge, yet the Judge is listening to arguments advanced by Hughes that Joyce Touchette should now be ordered to produce the child.
I have not replied, but when doing so will point out that Joyce Touchette in her affidavit never said she had physical custody of the infant at that time. She said she and the others including Jim Jones had custody documents & this she appended to her affidavit showing she was entitled to custody but not declaring she had physical custody.
c, I do not feel Joyce should swear any further affidavits. She had to do so to be joined. Now she is joined, we are arguing our submissions on law that Bishop J’s Orders are a nullity.
d. It strikes me that Bishop J who is listening carefully his reluctant to declare his own Orders bad. Having heard all of our arguments then, except Hughes had anything new to add, the matter should have ended, but permitted Hughes to say that the Applicant Touchette should have Orders made against her & she should produce the child is pointless & confusing & ridiculous. I have no intention of re-arguing our case. We had 2 weeks of hearings & authorities & except for pointing out the observations I have made herein I shall not be induced to fall into error defending a situation which does not arise, viz. we must defend Touchette re an alleged request for orders to produce the child.
While the case was being held in Chambers, Grace, her husband [Tim Stoen], & Haas being present… The Orderly said that the Stoens were required at the Station for report & they had to leave while Hughes made some inaudible comments questioning the right of the police – Why? Check.
& Habeas Corpus proceedings already I will have to go before the judge is granted the Nisi (I think [illegible word])
L.
—–
BB-31-a-46 – a-47
Lionel Luckhoo letter to Charles Garry, 2 November 1977
[Letterhead of Lionel Luckhoo]
2nd November, 1977
Dear Charles,
I am deeply honoured by your biography gift and the generous inscription therein which I have just received. I shall write to you after I have read and digested the same.
I sent herewith copies of the three publications of my stories which have been printed up to the present. Someone from abroad (Fred Archer) comes on the 13th of this month to spend a few weeks and to get material to do my biography which will be printed simultaneously in London and New York. I am happy about this because we lived for a short while and it provides a feeling of satisfaction of to know that one’s efforts will be recorded for those of my family who will come in the distant future when I am pushing up daisies.
Just glancing through the pages of your book, you certainly have had an exciting life in which your tenacity and courage are strongly evidenced. Maybe one day I shall be privileged to see you in action and hear you in person.
I hope our mutual client takes our advice if and when the occasion arises.
I have just concluded my 205th murder, but I fear I have some pending in which the chances of success are rather slim. I am advised to pick my cases, but somehow this approach does not appeal to me although I do confess that when I was in the 190s [Editor’s note: Likely an omission in the decade] I exercised some discretion in the acceptance of briefs.
My daughter’s comments to you were, “Daddy he seems to be a very real person,” and she is looking forward to the reading of your biography.
I have had suggestions from abroad that I should do a lecture tour with some of the anecdotes and some of my criminal cases, and also the diplomatic period of my life when I represented two independent countries, Barbados and Guyana in Europe and the UK as Ambassador, but nothing has fructified.
Maybe one day I shall be invited into your part of the world to do the kind of talks I did in England, and then it would be my great pleasure to renew our acquaintance.
Warmest regards to you and your wife and the best wishes!
Forever Yours,
/s/ Lionel
—–
BB-31-a-49
Lionel Luckhoo letter to Paula Adams, 7 December 1977
[Letterhead of Lionel Luckhoo]
7th December, 1977
Dear Paula,
Re: Application by Joyce Touchette for joinder and to remove Habeas Corpus Orders.
In my letter to you of 19th September, I pointed out “… My services up to the present stage are freely given…” I find I have attended eight (8) times in Court for this matter and once again must do so on the 18th December, when a date shall be fixed for the continuation. I suggest the sum of $2500.00 (two thousand five hundred dollars).
All of the lawyers have, of course, been paid and there are no extra fees. We would all be present for the continuation.
In respect of general advice and even the opinion which I gave today re Criminal charge of kidnapping, there are no charges. I have had to fix a fee because of the long drawn-out hearings which are time-consuming.
Warmest Regards!
Yours,
/s/ Lionel L.
—–
BB-31-a-50
OPINION
Re: Kidnapping.
Kidnapping is an offense at Common Law punishable by a fine and/or imprisonment. We in Guyana follow the common law of England, and the stealing and carrying away of a person is an offense at English Common Law. To obtain a prima facie case the Prosecution will have to prove the imprisonment of the person, whether it be a common prison or a private dwelling home.
It is a good defense to show that the person was not imprisoned. Merely to withdraw consent given for the care of a person placed in a lawful custody of another is not good kidnapping.
The following cases are of use to show the limits of kidnapping:
- R. -v- Lesley 1 East P.C. 429.
- R. -v- Nodde ( CCA, April 12, 1937).
- Phillips -v- Eyre, LR 4 RB 240.
Clearly in the instant case there is no taking of the person against his will. There is no detention of the person against his will and there is no confinement of the person against his will. These requisites of kidnapping as understood by the Common Law of England are absent and consequently no case can properly be founded to institute proceedings.
/s/ Lionel Luckhoo
Of counsel
7-12-77
—–
BB-31-a-82
Undated handwritten notes by Lionel Luckhoo
Notes to Joyce Touchette
Case called in Chambers before Bishop J (he had granted the Orders) & so he would have to eat humble pie to reverse his Own Orders. But this is procedurally correct.
If we fail & this is possible before the same Judge, but our case is so overwhelming I feel it ought to succeed even before the same Judge.
Then our next step is to appeal to the Full Court of Appeal. I have every reason to believe that the Judges there will agree with us & set aside the Orders.
If we fail (& this is most unlikely) we will go before the final Court of Appeal presided over by the Chancellor (S.O.F. Haynes).
My firm conviction is that we must succeed and there will be no need to go to the final Court, although if Grace Stoen fails she may well do so. The case before Bishop reached the skirmishing stage. Bishop was contending that Touchette’s Affidavit might be treated as a Return of Service for Jones. I stated that Jones has not been served, he has entered no appearance. I am not appearing for him. Touchette is on her own seeking to set aside Nullity Orders because they affect her.
The case may well take the entire week or more!!! It will be long drawn out & will be argued by Lloyd Luckhoo (S.C.) & myself.
Lionel Luckhoo
—–
BB-31-a-83
The Registrar tells me he is sending up no one can serve any future papers. What I seek to establish is that the slate should be wiped clean i.e. no orders must remain against Jim Jones.
So the contempt proceedings will remain “stet.” If Grace Stoen does come down (a possibility but unlikely) she cannot give evidence or be heard as –
The case in its present status must be held good or bad without supplementaries.
Nothing is impossible but for us to fail to get the orders “stricken” it is as near as possible to an impossibility.
All of her lawyers are working on Sunday and the law library to make assurance doubly sure. At the end of the line I can see no Order outstanding. They are a nullity.
LAL [Lionel A. Luckhoo]