The newest member of the Judicial and Legal Service Commission, attorney Ernest Koylass, yesterday warned members of the legal profession “not to mire this issue of restarting of the matters before a different magistrate with unnecessary controversy.” However, the Law Association says any decision on whether part heard matters left by former chief magistrate Marcia Ayers-Caesar will be heard de novo “will be decided by the magistrate to whom each matter is assigned.”
Koylass made his call even as a new controversy raged over the meeting called by Chief Justice Ivor Archie one week ago, which he said had “reached consensus” on starting de novo the 53 part-heard matters left by Ayers-Caesar when she was elevated to the High Court before being forced to resign as a Judge.
Asked his opinion on the meeting held by Archie yesterday, Koylass said: “I hold the view that the meeting held by the Honourable Chief Justice with the various office holders and persons representing different interests, as reported in the newspapers, was a course which in his own discretion he was entitled to pursue towards receiving their views and even support as to the way forward concerning the part heard-matters.”
Koylass said it may also have been “a consensus-building exercise to garner the support of all concerned as to the progression of the matters with the least possible disadvantages to the accused persons. All of this in the context of the present issue is positive.”
He was of the view that the course of restarting the matters was “that of the Chief Justice’s independent exercise of his power of control and supervision over the Chief Magistrate, such power being given to him under Section 15 of the Judicial and Legal Service Act.”
But the issue of consensus has been disputed by two senior attorneys who represented the Law Association at the meeting.
Sophia Chote SC and vice-president Rajiv Persad said they were not aware any decision was going to be taken on the part-heard matters nor were they aware that a press release would have been issued following the meeting.
For its part, the law association said “it is our clear view that the issue of whether any individual matter will be heard de novo will be decided by the magistrate to whom each matter is assigned. Further, that said decision will be made consequent on submissions by the counsel who appear before said magistrate.”
Chote said the first time she knew a release was being sent out by the CJ about the meeting was when it was brought to her attention by attorney and Opposition senator Gerald Ramdeen during a break at last Thursday’s sitting of the Senate.
In a letter to Law Association president Douglas Mendes SC, Chote said while the “majority of persons expressed the view that perhaps it was better for these matters to be started de novo, there was certainly no decision taken on the matter nor were we individually polled for our views.”
Her letter was made public over the weekend by Ramdeen, who then wrote to the Law Association asking it to make a public statement on the matter.
Ramdeen also wrote to each of the 13 people who attended the meeting indicating he intended to begin proceedings in the High Court to “quash the decision of this summit and declare it to be unlawful, without jurisdiction and null and void.”
In response to Ramdeen, Mendes confirmed he had been provided with a report from Chote on the meeting. Mendes said it was made clear by the CJ at the meeting that Ayers-Caesar “would not be returning to the Magistracy for the purposes of completing the part-heard matters.”
In those circumstances, Mendes said Persad “acknowledged there would be no option but to list her matters to be heard de novo. That was the extent of the consensus reached at the meeting.”
April 7: Opposition Senator Gerald Ramdeen issues a call to Chief Justice Ivor Archie and members of the JLSC to disclose the criteria used for the appointment of High Court judges.
April 12: Marcia Ayers-Caesar, Kevin Ramcharan and Avason Quinlan-Williams take the oath as judges from President Anthony Carmona.
April 12: Chief Justice Ivor Archie defends the process used by the JLSC for the selection and appointment of judges. He said: “It is important as well that the public knows that anyone who is appointed has been through one of the most rigorous selection processes you can find anywhere in the region or Commonwealth.”
April 19: The Judiciary issues a statement addressing rumblings about a void left in the system by the promotion of Ayers-Caesar, saying her departure would not negatively affect the lower court. Court and protocol information officer Alicia Carter-Fisher said what was before Ayers-Caesar were “paper committals.”
April 23: Law Association expresses concern about Ayers-Caesar’s appointment.
April 24: Ayers-Caesar is warmly welcomed to the bench by attorneys as she made her debut in the San Fernando Third Criminal Court.
April 25: Several inmates, mostly murder accused, had to be removed from the Port-of-Spain Eighth Magistrate’s Court after they began shouting and cursing after realising their matters could possibly be restarted due to the elevation of Ayers-Caesar to the High Court.
April 27: Ayers-Caesar resigns as a judge, apologising for the effect of her actions on the prisoners.
April 27: CJ Archie says Ayers-Caesar will be restored to the Magistracy.
May 4: Lawyers asked to sign a petition expressing loss of confidence in CJ and JLSC.
May 5: 11 senior counsels hold historic meeting expressing alarm at the events surrounding Ayers-Caesar’s judicial appointment.
May 5: Law association agrees to hold special general meeting to discuss resolution calling on CJ and JLSC to resign.
May 8: The JLSC issues a statement saying Marcia Ayers Caesar placing full blame on Ayers-Caesar for the fiasco surrounding her appointment as a judge and her subsequent resignation, and gave a step-by-step account of what had transpired.
May 13: Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj says Ayers-Caesar was pressured to sign a resignation letter and as far as he is concerned she is still a judge. He calls on the JLSC to allow her to continue as a judge or face a legal challenge.
May 24: CJ convenes meeting, including Judges of the Court of appeal, three justices of the High Court, the Acting Chief Magistrate and other Magistrates, the DPP and two members of the Law Association.
May 25: CJ issues a release saying the May 24 meeting reached consensus that the 53 part-heard matters left by Ayers-Caesar will be started de novo.
May 26: Attorney Gerald Ramdeen threatens legal action against the CJ on behalf of his client Akili Charles, saying the meeting of May 24 was illegal and that the group had no jurisdiction to decide on the part-heard matters.
May 29: Sophia Chote SC pens a letter to the Law Association president saying there was no consensus at the meeting with the CJ and she was not aware the 53 part-heard matters were to be discussed at the meeting, which was called to discuss “matters pertaining to the administration of justice.”
May 30: Gerald Ramdeen writes to Law Association president asking the association to make a public statement on the meeting. Ramdeen also writes the 13 people who attended the May 24 meeting indicating he intended to begin proceedings in the High Court to quash the decision of the meeting and declare it to be unlawful, without justification and null and void.
May 31: the Law Association confirms receipt of letter from Sophia Chote SC on the meeting convened by the CJ. It also confirms vice president Rajiv Persad, who also attended the meeting, was told Ayers-Caesar would not be returning to the Magistracy to hear the part-heard matters. Persad also wrote to the association saying he was not aware the meeting called by the CJ was to take a decision on the part-heard matters.
