Attorney General Reginald Armour last Friday commended what he said was the "Independent Opposition bench," after UNC Mayaro MP Rushton Paray spoke in debate on the Civil Division bill (2024).
Armour made the comment in closing debate on the bill, which was later passed.
The bill transfers the civil jurisdiction of the High Court to a new Civil Courts division, where all civil matters will be managed, easing the High Court's burden.
Specialised divisions in the Civil Court - a Small Claims Court and Estates Administration Office - will reduce delays and backlog, and ease public pressure in areas that Armour said had caused frustration.
The Estates Administration Office particularly, will simplify probate processes for uncontested cases after deaths. Lengthy delays with probate have been a major source of complaint.
"We're here to improve access to justice for the small man and woman," Armour said during his contribution.
Speakers in debate were Opposition Leader Kamla Persad-Bissessar, UNC MPs Saddam Hosein and Arnold Ram, former attorney general Faris Al-Rawi and Minister in the Ministry of National Security Keith Scotland.
"I have to commend the contributions of the Independent bench of the Opposition which came from the Honourable Mayaro - the MP for Mayaro - because those were the only remarks that were made with any objectivity and with any substance," Armour said after Paray spoke, brouging loud Government desk-thumping approval and laughter.
"I'll respond by thanking him for the remarks which he made because they addressed legitimate concerns which the listening and viewing public would be interested to get clarified."
Armour further said he accepted and thanked "the Independent Member from Mayaro on the other side," for his contribution.
During Paray's address, deputy House Speaker Esmond Forde cautioned UNC upper bench MPs' chatter. "Members please, the Member for Mayaro, I've recognised and I'm only recognising the Member for Mayaro at this time..."
Focus on social media defamation - Rushton
During his contribution to the debate earlier, Paray said all speakers did a reasonably good job in examining many legal aspects but he felt it important to raise matters on his constituents' behalf.
Paray said he didn't see areas of the bill infringing on constitutional rights, but he noted the exclusion of libel, slander and malicious prosecution from the Small Claims Court's jurisdiction.
"This could leave some individuals vulnerable without affordable avenue for legal redress, especially on cases involving defamation on social media. That's a big issue today with the push on social media and uncontrolled way, you can be defamed very, very easily," Paray added.
Paray suggested limited jurisdiction in the Small Claims Court for defamation claims or consumer protection disputes, "particularly focusing on online and digital cases where damages are small but reputational damage can still be significant at the end of the day."
Paray felt the financial cap on Small Claims court cases could discourage claims. He recommended access at state offices to file claims or do hearings, public education on the bill and mediation for amicable resolution.
Armour said Small Claims court issues start with $50,000 and if it works well, he may return with amendments if Government wants to take it to $100,000. He said Paray's points on public education engaged exactly what he was going to speak to and assured this will continue, as well as addressing Paray's concerns on access. Virtual courts and Customer Centre kiosks around T&T will be expanded, he said.