JavaScript is disabled in your web browser or browser is too old to support JavaScript. Today almost all web pages contain JavaScript, a scripting programming language that runs on visitor's web browser. It makes web pages functional for specific purposes and if disabled for some reason, the content or the functionality of the web page can be limited or unavailable.

Wednesday, August 13, 2025

Law Lords reserve decision in Ayers-Caesar case

by

252 days ago
20241204
Marcia Ayers-Caesar

Marcia Ayers-Caesar

Se­nior Re­porter

derek.achong@guardian.co.tt

For­mer chief mag­is­trate Mar­cia Ay­ers-Cae­sar will have to wait to learn the fate of her law­suit over her short-lived ju­di­cial ap­point­ment.

Five Law Lords of the Privy Coun­cil re­served their de­ci­sion in the fi­nal ap­peal of the case af­ter hear­ing lengthy sub­mis­sions at the Unit­ed King­dom Supreme Court Build­ing in Lon­don, Eng­land, be­tween Mon­day and yes­ter­day.

UK Supreme Court pres­i­dent Lord Robert Reed, who chaired the pan­el, did not set a date for the de­liv­ery of their judg­ment. 

Lord Reed said, “We will con­sid­er your sub­mis­sions and is­sue our de­ci­sion as soon as we can.”

In the ap­peal, the Ju­di­cial and Le­gal Ser­vice Com­mis­sion (JLSC) and Chief Jus­tice Ivor Archie con­tend­ed that three lo­cal Court of Ap­peal judges got it wrong in Oc­to­ber last year when they over­turned the de­ci­sion of now-re­tired judge David Har­ris to dis­miss the case. 

Pre­sent­ing sub­mis­sions yes­ter­day, Se­nior Coun­sel Ian Ben­jamin, who rep­re­sent­ed the JLSC and Archie, claimed that Jus­tice Har­ris prop­er­ly dis­posed of the case af­ter con­sid­er­ing ev­i­dence. 

On Mon­day, Ben­jamin main­tained that Archie’s col­leagues should not have crit­i­cised his con­duct. 

“Ir­re­spec­tive of the hats (Chief Jus­tice and chair­man of the JLSC) he was wear­ing, he act­ed re­spon­si­bly, trans­par­ent­ly, and con­sti­tu­tion­al­ly com­pli­ant in his con­ver­sa­tions with her, which, he main­tained, were not de­signed to threat­en or co­erce her as the Ap­peal Court wrong­ly found,” Ben­jamin said. 

He claimed that Archie treat­ed Ay­ers-Cae­sar with fair­ness and com­pas­sion while seek­ing to find a so­lu­tion to the cas­es she left un­fin­ished when she took up the ap­point­ment that caused min­i­mal dis­rup­tion to the ad­min­is­tra­tion of jus­tice. 

Re­spond­ing to the sub­mis­sions, King’s Coun­sel Pe­ter Knox, who led Ay­ers-Cae­sar’s le­gal team along­side Ramesh Lawrence Ma­haraj, SC, stat­ed that the Court of Ap­peal could not be fault­ed for the “very care­ful” judg­ment is­sued by each of the three judges on the pan­el last year. 

“If there is no ma­te­r­i­al er­ror in their rea­son­ing, you should not in­ter­fere,” Knox said. 

Ay­ers-Cae­sar was ap­point­ed a high court judge in April 2017, but two weeks lat­er, she re­signed from the post amid pub­lic crit­i­cism over al­most 50 cas­es she had left un­fin­ished when she took up the pro­mo­tion. 

Ay­ers-Cae­sar then filed the law­suit in which she claimed that she was pres­sured by Archie and the JLSC in­to re­sign­ing un­der the threat that her ap­point­ment would be re­voked. 

She claimed that a press re­lease an­nounc­ing her res­ig­na­tion was pre­pared by Ju­di­cia­ry staff be­fore she met with Archie to dis­cuss the sit­u­a­tion and that she did not have any in­put. 

Archie and the JLSC de­nied any wrong­do­ing and claimed that Ay­ers-Cae­sar’s fail­ure to dis­close the full ex­tent of her un­fin­ished case­load was suf­fi­cient­ly se­ri­ous to war­rant a dis­ci­pli­nary in­quiry.

Archie had claimed that he had sug­gest­ed re­sign­ing and re­turn­ing as a mag­is­trate to com­plete the cas­es but main­tained that he did not pres­sure or threat­en her. He al­so claimed that nei­ther he nor the JLSC had the pow­er to take the ac­tion at­trib­uted to them by Ay­ers-Cae­sar. 

They con­tend­ed that Ay­ers-Cae­sar ac­cept­ed re­spon­si­bil­i­ty and freely ten­dered her res­ig­na­tion with the in­ten­tion, at that time, to re­turn as a mag­is­trate to com­plete the part-heard cas­es.

While Ay­ers-Cae­sar’s case was at a pre­lim­i­nary stage, the Of­fice of the At­tor­ney Gen­er­al filed an in­ter­pre­ta­tion law­suit to help de­ter­mine what should hap­pen to her un­fin­ished case load.

How­ev­er, most of the cas­es were restart­ed and com­plet­ed by Ay­ers-Cae­sar’s suc­ces­sor, Maria Bus­by-Ear­le-Cad­dle, be­fore the case was de­ter­mined by High Court Judge Car­ol Gob­in in 2020. Bus­by-Ear­le-Cad­dle was sub­se­quent­ly ap­point­ed as a High Court Judge.

Jus­tice Gob­in even­tu­al­ly ruled that all the cas­es would have to be restart­ed, as there is no le­gal pro­vi­sion for them to be com­plet­ed be­fore a fresh mag­is­trate. 

Most, if not all, of the hand­ful of cas­es, which were put on hold pend­ing the de­ter­mi­na­tion of the case be­fore Gob­in, were com­plet­ed.

In their judg­ment on Oc­to­ber 12, last year, Ap­pel­late Judges Al­lan Men­don­ca, Nolan Bereaux, and Al­ice Yorke-Soo Hon ruled that the is­sue of her case man­age­ment as a mag­is­trate was in­suf­fi­cient for her to be re­moved un­der Sec­tion 137 of the Con­sti­tu­tion. 

Un­der the seg­ment of the Con­sti­tu­tion, judges can on­ly be re­moved for mis­be­hav­iour or their in­abil­i­ty to per­form the func­tions of the of­fice due to in­fir­mi­ty of the mind or body. 

The judges all wrote sep­a­rate but con­sis­tent judg­ments in which they crit­i­cised the JLSC and Archie for im­prop­er­ly and il­le­gal­ly pres­sur­ing Ay­ers-Cae­sar to re­sign. 

In the event that Ay­ers-Cae­sar suc­cess­ful­ly de­fends the ap­peal, she will be able to fi­nal­ly re­turn to the po­si­tion, as the Ap­peal Court’s de­ci­sion was stayed pend­ing the de­ter­mi­na­tion by the Privy Coun­cil. 

Ay­ers-Cae­sar was al­so rep­re­sent­ed by Ron­nie Bisses­sar, SC, Vi­jaya Ma­haraj, and Varin Gopaul-Go­sine. 


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored