Gobin writes back

JUSTICE Carol Gobin has challenged Chief Justice Ivor Archie on his proposed transfer of her to the Family Court in Tobago in September.

As she responded to his e-mailed letter to her in which he told her as a judge of the High Court, she should “expect to be assigned to adjudicate anywhere,” Gobin also disclosed that no one, not even lawyers in Tobago, knows anything of the proposed roll-out of the court.

Last Friday, Gobin sought a meeting with Archie to discuss his transfer of her to Tobago for the roll-out of the Family Court there.

Archie responded to the judge on Monday morning and by evening, she replied to him.

She told him she was disappointed by his “somewhat autocratic approach” in declining to add the issue of her proposed transfer on the agenda of a meeting of judges and Masters of the court yesterday.

Newsday was told that the CJ, when questioned at the meeting, had no direct response on the location of the Tobago Family Court or administrative staffing.

In her response to Archie, Gobin said she regretted that he did not consider to be of concern to judges the assignment of a civil court judge for an indeterminate period to Tobago, the general policies behind such assignment, which, she said, required consultation and the courtesy of adequate notice, as well as the effect it would have on the judge’s docket.

She maintained her commitment to serving Tobago, and told the Chief Justice, “Your attempt in the circumstances to reduce my legitimate concern about the manner of my transfer to Tobago to complaint an unwillingness to provide service to the people of Tobago, therefore, does not trouble me. “

“My record both in the discharge of any Tobago docket speaks for itself. I have attached that letter to remind you of the contents and of my published position on my duty to the people of Tobago.

“ I stood up for the people of Tobago when the administration seemed prepared to dismiss them,” she told the Chief Justice.

Gobin told Archie his response to her was “replete with vague references’ to matters of which she should be aware of concerning the roll-out of the Family Court pilot project, which, she said, was “some considerable time ago.”

“I am generally aware of many things Chief Justice. What I can say categorically, however, is that I was not aware of the proposed roll-out of the Family Court in Tobago for September 16, 2019.”

She said there was no reference to this by him in the past.

“There has not, as far as I am aware, been any consultation with the judges generally or the civil judges specifically.

“There is no record of any communication to the judges on the Tobago roll-out in any correspondence in the last twelve (12) months or I daresay even before that.

“Indeed since your purported assignment I have spoken with representatives of the Council of the Law Association, the Family Court Committee, Assembly of Southern Lawyers, the Family Lawyers Association and I have confirmed that there has been no formal consultation with them.

“They know nothing of this,” Gobin said.

In fact, she told Archie that members of the executive of the professional body of lawyers in Tobago, also, said the first time they heard of the roll-out was two days ago in the media.

“ They have fundamental questions on it such as where it the intended location of the registry. Perhaps you need to consult considered that,’ she said.

She also provided him with figures on the number of matrimonial petitions filed in the sister-isle up to July 24 – there were 47.

For 2018, there were 86.

She said from her enquires of her colleagues on the civil bench, the number of High Court docketed to judges, remained small.

“ In the circumstances, I remain curious as to the identity to the parties to the extensive consultation both internal and external to which you refer in your email and the information statistical or otherwise, on the basis of which you determined that there is the need for a full-time judge to be posted in Tobago. “Quite frankly I have been unable to follow your conclusion that my complaint about a lack of consultation on the purported assignment and relocation is without any merit because ‘you clearly recall that sometime ago when you reached out to invite my participation in a Judiciary Committee, I declined somewhat ungraciously.’

“But your recollection is not so clear,” she told him, as she referred to a training session in Tobago in 2014, after which she said she consulted with Justice Adrian Saunders, before he became President of the regional court, and they laughed at the idea of her speaking on behalf of the Judiciary on policy.

She reminded him that after speaking to him over the phone, she returned the voluminous documents he provided her.

In the circumstances, I must conclude either that your recollection is faulty or that you are deliberately misrepresenting what transpired on that occasion,” she said, adding that she expressed a willingness to serve in the background.

“ Your response confirms your perceptions about my feelings toward you dating back to your appointment as Chief Justice.

“I am truly baffled. I now better understand your own treatment of me over the last several years. I have in private communications indicated my own feelings assessment of your animus toward me.

“At the appropriate time your references to me and my husband in statements reportedly made to a person who was recently granted humanitarian protection elsewhere will no doubt be disclosed,” she told him, in reference to his alleged friend Dillian Johnson.

“ These statements appear in an attachment which was included in the recently concluded report of the Law Association into your conduct.

“I said to you on a previous occasion that you have not denied having made them to date. These will be relied upon if necessary if I need to go forward. As for your objection to my using email as a convenient forum for raising issues which I believe are of importance to the Judiciary and my colleagues you will have to agree that this is not only convenient but absolutely necessary,” she said.

She also pointed out that Monday’s meeting was the first in over two years, and “surely a judge with a legitimate concern cannot be expected to remain silent until Chief Justice you consider convenient to share a moment of light fellowship.”

Gobin said she considered the means of correspondence, by e-mail which are copied to all judges, to be safe and the best method of record-keeping.

“I need not remind you that even now, in continuing proceedings before our courts, disputes as to what was communicated in meetings between yourself and other persons, remain to be resolved by cross-examination.

“There is always the risk that memories may fade. I must make clear Chief Justice that I do not dispute your right as Chief Justice to assign Judges to any division but may I please remind you of the following principle: - “Judicial deployment is also subject to the principle of internal dependence.

“Transfer must be possible for the best administration of justice but it cannot be unlimited or unchecked foreseen that it may be exercised as a means of control over the Judiciary …”

She told him his response, which appeared on certain Facebook posts, almost immediately, has only raised more questions about his motives.

“I must ask once more that you reconsider your decision not to allow discussion on the issues or that in any case you reconsider your decision.”