High and Appeal Court Judges have denied there was an administrative arrangement in place to facilitate sabbatical leave for them.
Lawyers representing the judges made the comment yesterday, as the State’s interpretation lawsuit over the issue came up for trial before High Court Judge James Aboud at the Hall of Justice in Port-of-Spain.
Russell Martineau SC, who is leading their legal team, was responding to a press release issued by the Judiciary earlier this year after Chief Justice Ivor Archie attempted to take a sabbatical earlier this year.
The email stated that an internal committee of judges led by then Appellate Judge and current President Paula-Mae Weekes had developed an internal policy to facilitate the programme that was recommended by the Salaries Review Commission (SRC) in its 98th report, published on November 13, 2013.
Martineau maintained that what was contained in the report was merely a recommendation. He suggested it should have been incorporated into the Judges’ Salaries and Pensions Act. Attorneys for the Office of the Attorney General also agreed with Martineau’s claim over the legality of the leave.
Retired Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) Judge Rolston Nelson, who is leading the State’s legal team, said: “There is no recommendation by the SRC and the power to go on a sabbatical does not exist other than the Chief Justice’s right to grant a judge a leave of absence. Entitlement to sabbatical leave does not arise at all.”
Nelson said the State was not concerned about the Judiciary’s internal arrangements but rather how such a policy would affect the Consolidated Fund, as judges would have to be paid during their sabbaticals.
In its submissions, the Law Association disagreed, as it claimed that even without the internal policy arrangements, sabbatical leave for judges became an entitlement after the report was approved by Cabinet and then Parliament in February and March 2014.
LATT president Douglas Mendes, SC, questioned why State attorneys did not provide Cabinet minutes on the issue to assist in its claim.
“Judges and the public have a right to know,” Mendes said.
Like Martineau, Mendes suggested that the legislation dealing with judges’ compensation should have been amended.
After hearing the submissions from the parties, Aboud adjourned the case to December 10, when he is expected to deliver judgement.
About the case
The sabbatical controversy arose in March, when it was revealed that then President Anthony Carmona had approved a six-month leave for Chief Justice Ivor Archie to participate in a programme at the United States Federal Judicial Institute in Washington, DC.
In his application to Carmona, Archie quoted the Salaries Review Commission (SRC) report for 2013, which said the sabbatical scheme was agreed to “in principle”.
The issue was then examined by a committee led by then Appellate Judge and current President Paula Mae Weekes, which submitted a report in 2014. Weekes was the only person other than Archie to have applied for a sabbatical and her request was denied.
In response to the issue, the Government and a group of outspoken judges questioned whether both reports had been transformed into official policy.
Archie reversed his position following public criticism and instead opted to utilise 35 weeks of accrued vacation leave. However, this too was challenged, as it was revealed that judges do not benefit from roll-over unused vacation leave. Archie eventually left the country in late March after agreeing to take six weeks leave. Archie cut his leave short after his mother passed away but then proceeded on six more weeks leave, which took into consideration his unused days in the first period, public holidays within both periods and his official attendance at several international conferences.