ON May 29, 1954,  People’s Progressive Party (PPP)lawyer, Rudy Luck was illegally jailed by a magistrate  because  the young  lawyer,  who was found guilty on a trivial charge of disorderly behaviour, refused to sign a bond to come up for sentence  if called upon. Luck, who was sentenced to two months imprisonment, subsequently applied for a writ of habeas corpus. He was represented by L.F.S. Burnham, a brilliant lawyer, who at the time was one of the top officials of the then People’s Progressive Party.
The magistrate  involved in the matter, Mr. R.G. Sharples, as well as the Superintendent of Prisons  were represented by the Acting Solicitor-General.
Acting Chief Justice  Frederick Malcolm Boland, who heard the habeas corpus application, found the imprisonment illegal, since he felt Luck’s failure to  enter  into a  recognizance to come up for sentence for an offence of disorderly conduct did not justify  the sentence imposed on him, which was in excess of  that to which he was liable for his disorderly conduct.
The maximum punishment  for disorderly behaviour at the time was a fine of $50, or a maximum of two months imprisonment for failing to pay it. According to Law, imprisonment  can only be imposed  when there  is a default in payment  of the fine.
During the hearing of the application [for habeas corpus], Chief Justice Boland said: “I have directed that this matter, which was taken by me on Saturday morning  in Chambers,  be adjourned  into open Court today with a two-fold object.
“Firstly, I came  to the conclusion at the hearing  in Chambers that the detention of Mr. Luck in prison,  in pursuance of the  order of the Magistrate,  is illegal, and I ordered that a Writ of Habeas Corpus should issue; that is to say, that the Superintendent  of Prisons  is directed to produce the body of the prisoner  in Court, with an accompanying return setting out the grounds  of his incarceration  in the Georgetown Prison.
“Together with the Writ, the Superintendent of Prisons is to be served with a notice that he must comply with the direction therein contained on Thursday,  June 3, next.
Continuing with his deliberations, Justice Boland said:
“Now, having come to the conclusion on Saturday that the continued detention  of Mr. Luck is illegal, I had the power to direct his gaoler, forthwith, to discharge Mr. Luck without waiting to  produce him in Court on Thursday,  June 3, but I’ve decided that, as this matter has aroused public interest,  I would, in open Court, tell Mr. Luck, who  was not present at the hearing  in Chambers, why I was holding that he was entitled to be discharged.
“Secondly, I wished to take the opportunity in open Court to utter a few words of warning to Mr. Luck, as a Barrister-at-Law, admitted  to practise before the Courts of this Colony.
“Accordingly,  I did not direct  that Mr. Luck be discharged  from the prison  forthwith  on Saturday morning,  but I ordered that he should be brought from prison to my Chambers at once, and there  I ordered  his release on his signing his own recognizance without a surety in the sum of $500,  conditioned for his appearance before me  in Court  this morning  and the proceedings in Chambers were adjourned till this morning and to be taken in Court.
“I propose at a later date, for the guidance of Magistrates, to give a written decision, making reference  to the relevant sections  of the Ordinance  on the question of the legality  of the Order of the commitment  made in this matter by the Magistrate. It is sufficient now, without reference  to the Ordinance to the authority of decided cases,  to give in outline  the grounds for my holding that Mr. Luck is entitled to be discharged from prison.
“The  Magistrate  would appear to have confused his powers  over  a defendant  whom  he is willing  to discharge  there and then, without sentence,  on condition  that he signs  a recognizance to come up for sentence at some future date, with that of a defendant  whom he requires  to sign a recognizance  to guarantee his good behaviour in the future.
“In default  of compliance with the latter kind of recognizance, the Ordinance provides  for imprisonment  for three months, with or without hard labour. Had the Magistrate directed Mr. Luck to enter a recognizance for his good behavior,  or to keep the peace, the order of commitment for two months with hard labour would have been a punishment  within the Law.
“It is for the above reason that I now make the order that Mr. Luck be discharged from prison.”
Turning to the defendant, Justice Boland said:
“And now, a word to Mr. Luck  as I am discharging him.  Mr. Luck, while the Court has no power over, nor does it desire to control, the political views and activities  of members of the  Bar or of  Solicitors whose names  appear on its rolls, the Court will take notice of offences by practitioners  which show a determination to flout the Law which has been prescribed by the proper legally constituted  authority, and which it is the duty  of the Courts  of the Colony to administer.
“And the Court will be compelled all the more  to take notice of any  such flouting  of the Law by a practitioner when serious disturbance in the community may result therefrom. For conduct of this nature, it may be necessary for the Court to exercise its powers of disciplining a practitioner as is provided by Section  20 of the Legal Practitioner’s  Ordinance, Chapter 26.
“That section of the Ordinance, if invoked  in the case of a Barrister-at-Law, might,  apart from his being dealt with  by the Court, lead to the Barrister being finally disciplined by the Benches of his Inn.
“From what appears in the notes of evidence in the case of disorderly behaviour, the facts constituting  the offence, though perhaps justifiably deemed  trivial by the Magistrate, nevertheless  would have warranted  your being  required  to sign a good behaviour bond, having regard to present conditions  in this Colony.
“Had the Magistrate called upon you to sign such a bond, on your refusal or failure to do so,  the result of these habeas corpus proceedings might have been very different.  With these words of warning from the Bench, you are discharged from further imprisonment.”