Justice Seepersad wants full reopening of the courts

ONE High Court judge is advocating the full resumption of court operations even as there is a reopening of services in TT.

Justice Frank Seepersad says it is important for the public to access justice.

“We cannot have an artificial approach to the conduct of justice,” he said as he questioned why an essential service like the Judiciary as still operating under restrictions “when everything else is open?”

In March, Chief Justice Ivor Archie, in keeping with public health regulations for covid19, issued practice directions for the courts.

Cases deemed urgent were heard in virtual hearings. Jury trials were suspended and all in-person appearances were discouraged. Over 5,000 cases were heard virtually during the emergency period from March to April.

The practice directions expires on June 15, unless it is replaced earlier. And while some judges have expressed concern about reopening the courts too soon and putting staff and the public at risk while there is still a health concern over the coronavirus, Seepersad believes the Judiciary can manage its affairs to ensure the safety of users.

On Monday, Seepersad, who sits on the Civil Bench, held a trial at the Hall of Justice in Port of Spain.

He said the courts were sufficiently big enough to ensure physical distancing, “even exceeding that of public transportation which is operating at 75 per cent and soon 100 per cent, and the lines at business places.”

He said he chose an in-person hearing because it took less time than a virtual hearing. He also had concerns about the sanctity of evidence since, according to him, the court does not have full sight or control over witnesses and would not know of any attempt by someone who is not picked up on the cameras to influence a witness. He also said it could be used by attorneys to feign ability to hear a response and ask another question to get the desired answer.

Seepersad said he was concerned access to justice was being restricted. “The court has to ensure the process is not compromised and is transparent and accountable,” he said.

“We are all exposed to risk,” he said as he added that the court could not use remote, virtual hearings as a viable alternative.

In delivering his oral decision in the case before him, Seepersad ruled against Warisa Nafia Hosein in her lawsuit against her ex-husband Fyzal Hosein over a piece of property at Essence Avenue, Carli Bay, Couva.

Hosein (WN) asked the court to set aside a certificate of comfort in her ex-husband’s name since they were divorced and he no longer lived there. The couple were married in 1998 and Hosein (F) applied for the certificate of comfort in 2000. Because she was only 17 years-old at the time, her name was not put on the application.

The couple divorced in 2005, two years after Hosein (F) left the house telling the family he was going to buy food. He never returned. Shortly after he began dating some of her cousins and one day he asked her for a divorce. She married her ex-husband’s brother.

She said she was always led to believe the certificate of comfort would be in both their names. She also said she believed she was entitled to the property since she has been residing there for two decades and fears her ex-husband will seek to evict her.

In dismissing her claim, Seepersad said a certificate of comfort was merely protection against eviction by the State and conferred no legal title or rights.

He said there was nothing to justify the granting of a declaration to have the certificate of comfort amended to her name.