Former chief justice Satnarine Sharma says Chief Justice Ivor Archie’s decision to appoint retired judge Sebastian Ventour for a day to deliver three outstanding judgments has brought the administration of justice into disrepute.
Ventour resigned from the Integrity Commission on Wednesday after serving only seven months. He retired in 2012 and was appointed a judge for Thursday only, as he had to deliver three outstanding judgments, including one in a case involving Mora Ven Holdings Ltd versus Krishna Persad and Associates Ltd. In his letter of resignation, he explained that as a member of the commission he was prevented by law from delivering the judgments.
Ventour’s resignation means the work of the commission has been halted, as there is no one with a legal background to constitute the commission’s board. In an interview with the T&T Guardian yesterday, Sharma insisted Ventour should have finished his job before he retired in the first instance. “If he reached the age, he could have simply asked for an extension. All he had to do was ask the President, in those circumstances, for an extension,” Sharma said.
“But this makes the whole thing look like a circus...a big joke. It brings the whole thing into disrepute.” Saying the question of retired judges returning to deliver judgments needed urgent attention and research, Sharma said such a situation must not be allowed to recur. Former chief justice Michael de la Bastide also agreed it would be beneficial to all parties for a judge to deliver judgments before retirement.
He said if another judge had to take charge of a case after a judge had retired, that would result in a retrial, which could not only be long and drawn out, but also oppressive and unfair. De la Bastide, however, said he saw no problem with Ventour returning to the bench to deliver three outstanding judgments, as he would have acted in the capacity of a judge.
“I do not know what all the fuss is about. What is important is the judgments were delivered, and it represents his views at the time when he is a judge on the bench and when he was fully qualified as a judge. “If I had to go with the lesser of the two evils, I would let judges come back to the bench to deliver judgments,” de la Bastide added. Former Independent senator Martin Daly, SC, said the issue of whether lawsuits might arise from the judgments of retired judges was a constitutionally important issue.
“Instinctively I don’t like it,” Daly said. He said judges who retired and were jumping from one position to another and then returning to the bench just to deliver judgments created “institutional instability” which must, to some degree, affect public confidence in all institutions, not just the judiciary. Douglas Mendes, SC, meanwhile, said the substance of the issue was the fact that Ventour had performed his judicial duty, adding that on the basis of that there were “no grey areas.”