Some of the country’s top legal minds have advised former chief magistrate Marcia Ayers-Caesar that it would be “imprudent and unwise” for her to return to the magistrates’ bench until “several unanswered questions” about her appointment and subsequent resignation as a judge and reinstatement are dealt with “expeditiously.”
Eleven of the country’s senior counsels yesterday held an historic meeting under the chairmanship of Alvin Fitzpatrick SC. The meeting was attended by former Attorneys General John Jeremie and Anand Ramlogan. Also attending were SCs Gilbert Petersen, Martin Daly, Pamela Elder, Sophia Chote, Claude Denbow, Seenath Jairam, Israel Khan and Avory Sinanan.
The T&T Guardian understands that the discussion was heated but the consensus was that Ayers-Caesar should not return until the issues surrounding the matter were settled.
In a statement issued after the meeting, the 11 senior counsels said they were “extremely alarmed by the events surrounding the recent judicial appointment of Mrs. Marcia Ayers-Caesar.” They said that “alarm is heightened by the obvious and considerable distress and anxiety being experienced by persons with matters left unfinished at the time of her appointment to the High Court.”
The senior counsels said: “We believe that before any solutions can be proferred, there are several unanswered questions which must be dealt with expeditiously.”
In those circumstances, they said it would be “imprudent and unwise” for Ayers-Caesar to resume duties until such time.
Concerns about the “lack of essential information,” they said, were brought to the attention of the president of the Law Association “in the full expectation that the association will take all necessary steps to vigorously pursue obtaining this information.”
The Senior Counsels said in the event the association does not pursue the quest for information from the relevant parties, “this concerned group of Senior Counsels will reconvene to treat with the matter as appropriate.”
The T&T Guardian was told that the Law Association was asked to take all reasonable steps to get proper information on whether the former chief magistrate made full disclosure of all her part heard matters to the CJ and he did not reveal it to the JLSC, or whether she gave him a partial list which is what he divulged to the JLSC.
The issue of whether a Commission of Inquiry should be convened to get to the heart of the matter was also raised during the meeting, but the senior counsels are reported to have indicated this was not their domain.
Attempts to get Chief Justice Archie on the meeting were unsuccessful.
But in a statement yesterday, Law Association president Douglas Mendes SC expressed concern that there appears not to have been an established mechanism which would ensure that before elevation, a magistrate would complete all part-heard matters, which could not properly be passed on to another magistrate.
Mendes said: “We consider that to be a serious flaw in the system and would urge the Judicial and Legal Service Commission to take immediate steps to preclude a similar occurrence in the future.”
The issue was discussed at a meeting of the council of the Law Association yesterday.
Mendes noted that Ayers-Caesar’s elevation to the High Court “created a real danger that a significant number of her part-heard matters would have to be heard all over again, which would have imposed on an already over-burdened magistracy. He said the further delays which would have been caused and the expense and prejudice which would have been visited upon defendants threatened to bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
The statement described as “right and courageous” the decision taken by Ayers-Caesar to resign her post and make herself available to complete the matters, saying “once lawfully re-appointed she would be empowered at the very least to start her part-heard matters over from the beginning.”
But Mendes acknowledged there is “some doubt as to whether she could lawfully continue the trials from where she left off, even with the defendant’s consent.” Noting that there is precedent both ways, Mendes said the association was “expressing no opinion on the strength or otherwise of either viewpoint.” That, he said, is a matter “which will eventually be resolved in court and it is best not to further rehearse the legal arguments in the public arena.”
Mendes said the council also received the requisition for a Special General Meeting to debate a resolution calling on the Chief Justice and the JLSC to resign. The meeting will be held on or before June 5, he said.
