A magistrate has agreed to withdraw her lawsuit against the Judicial and Legal Services Commission (JLSC) over being allegedly bypassed for promotion due to a protracted disciplinary complaint.
The decision was announced when Magistrate Sarah De Silva’s judicial review lawsuit against the JLSC and the Office of the Attorney General, filed in late December, came up for hearing before Justice Ricky Rahim yesterday afternoon.
De Silva’s lawyer, Anand Ramlogan, SC, told the court that a few weeks after the case was filed, the JLSC agreed to discontinue disciplinary proceedings against his client. The JLSC simultaneously appointed De Silva as a High Court Master.
Ramlogan claimed his client was still entitled to her legal costs for pursuing the lawsuit as he suggested that the JLSC would not have taken the action had she not initiated the case.
He said, “She acted reasonably and was justified in filing this action.”
“We succeeded on our mission as we got the relief we sought,” Ramlogan added.
The move was strongly resisted by Senior Counsel Russel Martineau who led the JLSC’s legal team. Martineau argued that the parties should bear their own legal costs as resolution of the legal dispute was not based on the case before Justice Rahim. He also pointed out that the case became academic after the JLSC took the decision in relation to the disciplinary proceedings.
After hearing lengthy submissions, Justice Rahim reserved his decision on the issue.
De Silva served as a prosecutor in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) for eight years before she was eventually appointed a magistrate in April 2018. She took up the appointment despite having a pending job application to be a High Court Master.
While she continued to participate in the rigorous recruitment process for the higher position, De Silva was called upon to respond to a complaint from a Tobago hotel over her conduct as a magistrate.
In late 2020, the JLSC wrote to De Silva informing her that she was successful in the recruitment process and had placed third on a merit list for promotion. However, the JLSC warned that final consideration for the position would take place after determination of the misconduct allegations.
In February 2021, the JLSC preferred two disciplinary charges against De Silva and retired Appeal Court Judge Andre Des Vignes was appointed to chair the disciplinary tribunal. While the tribunal was conducting its work in 2021, the JLSC agreed to extend the life of the merit list until December last year.
The tribunal was at an advanced stage when Des Vignes passed away in January last year. Several months later, retired Magistrate Anna Ryan was appointed to chair a new disciplinary panel to consider the charges.
When the charges came up for trial in September, last year, High Court Judge Hayden St Clair-Douglas, who was assigned to prosecute the case, failed to produce any witnesses. When the hearing was reconvened one month later, Justice St Clair-Douglas allegedly indicated that the prosecution’s witnesses were uncooperative and reluctant to testify.
De Silva’s lawyers called on the tribunal to dismiss the charges in light of this development but filed the lawsuit as they had not received a response and the merit list was set to expire a second time.
Through the lawsuit, De Silva sought an order over the future prosecution of the disciplinary charges as well as an order compelling that she be appointed a High Court Master with retroactive effect if the charges are dismissed.
In her court filings, De Silva’s lawyers claimed the JLSC’s delay in determining the disciplinary proceedings was unreasonable and unfair as persons who ranked below her on the merit list were promoted ahead of her.
They claimed that De Silva suffered unnecessary distress, loss, and inconvenience from the delay as she lost out on the increased salary and benefits she would have received as a High Court Master.
De Silva was also represented by Jayanti Lutchmedial, Vishaal Siewsaran, Natasha Bisram, and Jared Jagroo, while Tamara Toolsie appeared alongside Martineau for the JLSC. The legal team for the AG’s Office was led by Rishi Dass.
