JavaScript is disabled in your web browser or browser is too old to support JavaScript. Today almost all web pages contain JavaScript, a scripting programming language that runs on visitor's web browser. It makes web pages functional for specific purposes and if disabled for some reason, the content or the functionality of the web page can be limited or unavailable.

Thursday, March 27, 2025

Privy Council rules Marcia Ayers-Caesar was unlawfully removed from office

by

2 days ago
20250324
Former chief magistrate Marcia Ayers-Caesar

Former chief magistrate Marcia Ayers-Caesar

The Ju­di­cial Com­mit­tee of the Privy Coun­cil has ruled in favour of for­mer High Court judge Mar­cia Ay­ers-Cae­sar, dis­miss­ing an ap­peal brought by Trinidad and To­ba­go’s Ju­di­cial and Le­gal Ser­vice Com­mis­sion (JLSC) and up­hold­ing find­ings that her re­moval from of­fice in April 2017 was un­law­ful.

In a unan­i­mous de­ci­sion de­liv­ered on March 24, 2025, the Board found that Ay­ers-Cae­sar’s res­ig­na­tion from the High Court was the re­sult of co­er­cion and that the JLSC’s ac­tions vi­o­lat­ed her con­sti­tu­tion­al rights.

“The Com­mis­sion brought about the claimant’s res­ig­na­tion,” the judg­ment stat­ed, not­ing that the JLSC had ef­fec­tive­ly pres­sured her to step down un­der threat of dis­ci­pli­nary pro­ceed­ings. “Pres­suris­ing a judge to re­sign by hold­ing out the threat of dis­ci­pli­nary pro­ceed­ings, as the Com­mis­sion did in the present case, cir­cum­vents the con­sti­tu­tion­al safe­guards laid down in sec­tion 137 and un­der­mines their pur­pose.”

Ay­ers-Cae­sar was ap­point­ed to the High Court bench on 12 April 2017, leav­ing be­hind more than 50 part-heard mat­ters in the Mag­is­trates’ Court. Fol­low­ing pub­lic crit­i­cism and con­cerns from the ju­di­cia­ry, the Com­mis­sion met in emer­gency ses­sion on 27 April.

It de­cid­ed to give her “the op­tion of with­draw­ing from the High Court bench and re­turn­ing to the mag­is­tra­cy to dis­charge her pro­fes­sion­al re­spon­si­bil­i­ties,” and warned that “in the event she re­fus­es to with­draw, the Com­mis­sion would con­sid­er in­sti­tut­ing dis­ci­pli­nary ac­tion in ac­cor­dance with sec­tion 137 of the Con­sti­tu­tion.”

The Board found that this ap­proach was un­law­ful. Un­der sec­tion 137, judges may on­ly be re­moved for “in­abil­i­ty… or for mis­be­hav­iour,” and on­ly through a spe­cif­ic process in­volv­ing a tri­bunal and the Ju­di­cial Com­mit­tee of the Privy Coun­cil. The Com­mis­sion had not fol­lowed this pro­ce­dure, nor had it giv­en Ay­ers-Cae­sar a chance to re­spond to the al­le­ga­tions.

“The claimant was not giv­en that op­por­tu­ni­ty,” the judg­ment stat­ed. “The Com­mis­sion did not no­ti­fy her that the ques­tion of re­mov­ing her was be­ing con­sid­ered… nor did it give her any op­por­tu­ni­ty to an­swer [the al­le­ga­tions].” The Board held that this amount­ed to a breach of her con­sti­tu­tion­al right to the “pro­tec­tion of the law” un­der sec­tion 4(b).

While the Board dis­agreed with the Court of Ap­peal on one point—find­ing that the al­le­ga­tions, if proven, could fall with­in the am­bit of sec­tion 137—it stressed that this did not jus­ti­fy the Com­mis­sion’s con­duct. “There was con­duct on the part of the claimant which was ca­pa­ble of falling with­in the scope of sec­tion 137,” the judg­ment said, but em­pha­sised that “the Com­mis­sion’s de­ci­sion that the in­for­ma­tion be­fore it trig­gered and met the thresh­old for dis­ci­pli­nary en­quiry was un­law­ful by rea­son of pro­ce­dur­al un­fair­ness.”

The Board con­clud­ed that Ay­ers-Cae­sar’s res­ig­na­tion was not freely giv­en but was the prod­uct of un­law­ful pres­sure. “What the Chief Jus­tice told the claimant placed her un­der pres­sure to re­sign,” the judg­ment said, adding that she was pre­sent­ed with the “im­plic­it al­ter­na­tive of a dis­ci­pli­nary en­quiry—‘ef­fec­tive­ly the equiv­a­lent of im­peach­ment pro­ceed­ings’… It is un­sur­pris­ing that she re­spond­ed by agree­ing to re­sign.”

As a re­sult of the rul­ing, Ay­ers-Cae­sar is en­ti­tled to com­pen­sa­tion, though the ex­act amount and na­ture of that com­pen­sa­tion will be de­cid­ed by a judge of the High Court. The Privy Coun­cil not­ed that the Court of Ap­peal had al­ready or­dered an as­sess­ment of dam­ages for the breach of her con­sti­tu­tion­al rights. While the judg­ment did not or­der re­in­state­ment or ex­plic­it­ly man­date back pay, it left open the pos­si­bil­i­ty that com­pen­sa­tion could in­clude loss of earn­ings, pen­sion en­ti­tle­ments, or oth­er dam­ages based on what she would have re­ceived had she re­mained in of­fice.


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored