The Law Association has also come to the defence of Justice Frank Seepersad, saying it “deprecates any suggestion of political bias” on the part of the judge.
In a release singed by president Douglas Mendes, SC, yesterday, the association also said it is the duty of the registry of the High Court to bring to the attention of the Judiciary any attempts at “forum shopping.” It is also cautioned the media against “blindly repeating what is being peddled on social media.”
The association said the judge was “not responsible for nor has any control over the assignment of cases to his docket.” This, the association said, “is done randomly through an electronic system administered by the High Court Civil Registry.”
It also dismissed concerns about the speed with which the judgment in the challenge to the swearing in of the new judges was delivered, saying “neither can inference be properly drawn from the alacrity with which he approaches his judicial functions or the efficiency with which he discharges them.”
It noted that the possibility that an attorney may seek to manipulate the system by filing and re-filing proceedings until it is assigned to a judge of their liking is also beyond the particular judge’s control.
Mendes urged the “registry to take steps to ensure that any suspected attempts at forum shopping are immediately brought to the attention of the judiciary, so that remedial action can be taken.”
He also cautioned the print media “to be mindful that blindly repeating what is being peddled on social media serves only to legitimise the unsubstantiated statements of persons who are not bound by a journalistic code of ethics.”
The association noted that “tweets and social media posts may not be credible sources of news.” He also urged “otherwise responsible members of the profession and society as a whole” to “desist from posting, re-tweeting, sharing or circulating online messages which, unless substantiated, could only serve to undermine public confidence in the judiciary.”
The statement came on the heels of a statement from the judiciary which explained the process to assign cases at the Supreme Court.
The judiciary said there is a computerised case management system in the supreme court “designed to randomly assign judges to new cases upon filing.” It said the system is further supported by a “calendaring and Case Management Committee, should there be need for a judge to recuse his or herself or if the judge is unable to sit for any reason after random assignment, or to address any problems relating to assignments under the system.”
It explained that the application for an injunction to stay the swearing-in of two new judges “was filed as part of the substantive matter against the Judicial and Legal Service Commission which was already before Mr. Justice Frank Seepersad who was assigned the substantive matter by the computerised system.”
Video conferencing hearings, it said, “is not unusual and has been a feature of civil court operations since the implementation of the Civil proceedings Rules in 2005.”
