Judge adjourns case due to lack of paper

A HIGH Court judge a short while ago made a complaint in open court about the lack of paper in the judiciary which is preventing some judges from delivering written rulings.

Justice Frank Seepersad, presiding in the Fernando High Court this morning, declared that he is no longer going to dip into his own pocket to buy paper for the judiciary. He was scheduled to deliver a consent ruling in a land matter, but was forced to adjourn it for tomorrow, he said.

Seepersad said that when he next calls the land case, it is his hope that paper would be delivered to the judiciary in order for court staff to print what he described as a two-page consent order.

The case of Starlite Shopping Plaza for possession of land came up for hearing before Seepersad, but attorneys involved in the case had earlier this week informed the judge's Judicial Support Officer, that they no longer wish to proceed with a trial because the parties have agreed to a compromise. As a result, attorneys for Starlite sent a draft consent order for the judge's consideration.

Seepersad's court staff was supposed to print the consent order for the judge to peruse and make whatever changes, before confirming it. The judge was then supposed to call the case this morning and formalise the order before the attorneys.

However, when the case was called at 9. 15 am, Seepersad said, "There is no printing paper. I've asked the lawyers to come tomorrow instead. Things are continuing to deteriorate and this institution is on the brink of collapse. We do not have any printing paper."

Saying that for the past few weeks he has been footing the buying of paper out of his own pocket to print orders and judgments, Seepersad commented that even with the best intentions of his fellow judges, it would not be long again before they would not be able to discharge their obligations. He said, "The institution is on the brink of collapse and the only reason that chaos has not yet ensued, is that individual judges are cognisant of their constitutional obligations, but they continue to discharge their obligations in the most trying of circumstances. Unfortunately, even with the best intent, judges may soon find it impossible to continue as it is evident that our individual commitment seemingly signals to those in charge of the judiciary, that it should be buisness as usual."