Bernard’s last wish

FORMER Chief Justice Clinton Bernard, who has died at age 89, lived at least to see one of his last wishes fulfilled. Though many would argue it was too little too late, the passing of legislation that improved the circumstances of retired judges was nonetheless a victory for someone who had, courageously and repeatedly, called for such a measure in the face of unsatisfactory constitutional arrangements for the handling of judicial salaries and pensions.

Bernard’s tenure of chief justice – from 1985 to 1995 – saw key transitions in the Judiciary. Under him, the court adopted modern technology to improve note-taking, the Law Library embarked on digitisation, and the time-saving procedure of submitting skeleton arguments was introduced. In today’s high-tech world, these may seem like simple matters, but for a time they were audacious innovations.

Yet, Bernard’s tenure was remarkable for more than just the work he did in improving the justice system. From the start, he was involved in controversy. He was inadvertently enmeshed in the “two chief justices” controversy which occurred when Chief Justice Kelsick applied for and successfully received an extension to his own tenure beyond retirement age in order to complete outstanding cases. Bernard was effectively appointed while Kelsick was still in office, though the courts later found Kelsick to have properly acted. Then came the Justice Crane affair, in which Bernard acted on reports relating to the judge and “de-rostered” him, a move which was later struck down as unfair.

Even in retirement, Bernard continued to make headlines, taking on the role of chairman of the Commission of Inquiry into the Piarco Airport project. That matter resulted in extensive probes and, later, various findings that made their way to court. Along the way, the retired judge found himself in the cut and thrust of the politics of our country.

Undoubtedly, there were those who disagreed with many of Bernard’s actions, statements and rulings. But few could gainsay his reputation for speaking his mind, for better or worse. That propensity made him a compelling, if not always persuasive, advocate for various causes, including improving the conditions of judges – not just in relation to pensions. Such improvement was something he pursued not just because it was a cause close to home, but also because he expressed a fervent belief in the need for the Judiciary to be able to attract the cream of the crop. For him, strengthening the Judiciary was important.

In the end, Bernard, reflecting on his own life, would see it in terms of a trajectory from a simple life “behind the bridge” to the heights of the Hall of Justice. In some ways, that narrative was emblematic of the experiences of many of his contemporaries, even if he set himself apart through his long and distinguished service.