Senior Reporter
derek.achong@guardian.co.tt
Lawyers representing former chief magistrate Marcia Ayers-Caesar are eagerly anticipating the possible final appeal in her lawsuit over being pressured into resigning as a High Court Judge in 2017.
On October 12, Appellate Judges Allan Mendonca, Nolan Bereaux, and Alice Yorke-Soo Hon upheld Ayers-Caesar’s appeal over her lawsuit against Chief Justice Ivor Archie and the Judicial and Legal Service Commission (JLSC).
Speaking at a press conference at Kapok Hotel in Port-of-Spain on Saturday morning, Senior Counsel Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj, who leads Ayers-Caesar’s legal team, said that although the JLSC still has almost two weeks in which to decide whether to lodge a final appeal before the United Kingdom-based Privy Council, such a move is likely.
He said that his client would welcome the final appeal, which would see the country’s highest appellate court weigh in on the case for a second time after it was previously called upon to decide whether Archie and Judiciary officials could be cross-examined by him.
“I think if there is an appeal, it would be very good for Trinidad and Tobago and the Caribbean ... I think this is the kind of appeal that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council will want to hear very quickly,” Maharaj said.
Asked whether his client would oppose an extension of the 21-day stay of the appeal judgment, which was granted by the Court of Appeal, Maharaj said such a challenge would not be necessary if the JLSC agrees that the final appeal should be expedited.
Marcia Ayers-Caesar
“I have known the lady for a long time. She is a very strong-willed woman. She is very religious and believes in decency,” Maharaj said.
“I think if the commission wants to appeal, she is very confident that she would again be vindicated,” he added.
Maharaj repeatedly commended the three Court of Appeal judges for their handling of the case as he quoted segments of their separate but consistent judgments.
“The Judges of the Court of Appeal were justified in using very strong language and I think the people of T&T should be proud of the Court of Appeal decision because that is what a Court of Appeal is supposed to do,” Maharaj said.
“If the court is the guardian of the rights of the people, then no one is above the law and the law is supreme. Even if it is a Chief Justice, a Prime Minister or the President and that person violates the law, you have to be very strong and right about it in your judgment.”
Maharaj noted that he was deeply troubled by what transpired in the case and the fact that his client had to utilise every legal redress available to her to clear her name.
“I wish I did not have to do this case. I wish this event did not occur. I wish that because I do not think Justice Ayers-Caesar should have had to undergo what she went through,” Maharaj said.
“For over five years she was removed from office and her reputation was damaged. She was removed as a judge illegally and had to fight legal battles. That should not have happened to a judge like Marcia Ayers-Caesar,” he added.
Ayers-Caesar was appointed a High Court Judge in April 2017 but two weeks later, she resigned from the post amid public criticism over the 52 cases she had left unfinished.
Ayers-Caesar then filed the lawsuit in which she claimed that she was pressured by Archie and the JLSC into resigning under the threat that her appointment would be revoked.
She claimed that a press release announcing her resignation was prepared by Judiciary staff before she met with Archie to discuss the situation and that she did not have any input.
She also contended that former president Anthony Carmona, who is also a former High Court judge, refused to intervene after she informed him of Archie and the JLSC’s conduct.
Archie and the JLSC denied any wrongdoing and claimed that Ayers-Caesar’s failure to disclose the full extent of her unfinished case-load was sufficiently serious to warrant a disciplinary inquiry.
Archie had claimed that he had suggested resigning and returning as a magistrate to complete the cases but maintained that he did not pressure or threaten her. He also claimed that neither he nor the JLSC had the power to take the action attributed to it by Ayers-Caesar.
They contended that Ayers-Caesar accepted responsibility and freely tendered her resignation with the intention, at that time, to return as a magistrate to complete the part-heard cases.
While Ayers-Caesar’s case was at a preliminary stage, the Office of the Attorney General filed an interpretation lawsuit to help determine what should happen to her unfinished case load.
However, most of the cases were restarted and completed by Ayers-Caesar’s successor Maria Busby-Earle-Caddle before the case was determined by High Court Judge Carol Gobin in 2020.
Justice Gobin eventually ruled that all the cases would have to be restarted as there is no legal provision for them to be completed before a fresh magistrate.
Most, if not all, of the handful of cases, which were put on hold pending the determination of the case before Gobin, have since been completed.
Ayers-Caesar’s lawsuit was eventually dismissed by High Court Judge David Harris leading to the challenge before the Court of Appeal.
In their judgment, the appeal panel ruled that the issue of Ayers-Caesar’s case management as a magistrate was insufficient for her to be removed under Section 137 of the Constitution. The three judges ruled that she had been improperly coerced into resigning.
Under the segment of the Constitution, judges can only be removed for misbehaviour or their inability to perform the functions of the office due to infirmity of the mind or body.
A tribunal is appointed by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister in the case of the Chief Justice and the JLSC for judges.
The tribunal investigates and then recommends whether the Privy Council should consider if the judge should be removed.
Ayers-Caesar was also represented by Ronnie Bissessar, SC, Vijaya Maharaj, and Varin Gopaul-Gosine.