By ALEXANDER BRUZUAL Friday, February 3 2012

One of the more openly critical voices against the appointment of Chief Justice Ivor Archie and Justice of Appeal Wendell Kangaloo to the ranks of Senior Counsel last year, Karl Hudson-Phillips QC, has been appointed, along with 11 other attorneys, to review whether the appointment of Senior Counsel should be abolished, or for the appointments and obligations of the position, to be regularised.

The Queen’s Counsel, joins Law Association President, Dana Seetahal SC; Alvin Fitzpatrick SC; Patricia Dindyal; Lennox Sankersingh; Lesley-Ann Lucky-Samaroo; Daniel Khan; State Prosecutor George Busby; President of the Assembly of Southern Lawyers, Frank Seepersad; Joy Phillip; and Rajiv Persad, as members of the committee.

The committee was formed as a result of a resolution passed at the last Law Association meeting at the Convocation Hall of the Port-of-Spain Assizes on January 12.

The resolutions stated that, “The Law Association of Trinidad and Tobago do appoint a committee of persons drawn from its members to consider whether the appointment of Senior Counsel should be abolished, and if not, to make recommendations for and to propose the procedure and criteria for the appointment of Senior Counsel, the persons eligible for such appointment and the obligations of those to whom the honour is given.” The meeting was called in light of the controversy sparked on December 30, last, by the appointments of two sitting judges to the ranks of Senior Counsel.

Although the two judges have since returned their instruments of appointments, their initial decision to accept the instruments had a ripple effect on the way the machinery behind the rank of Senior Counsel operated. Among those who were more critical of their decisions was Hudson-Phillips QC who, in a letter to young attorneys at-the-bar, stated that the actions of the judges flew in the face of the principle of separation of powers and compromised the perception of both the Judiciary and the Bar.