Judges hit criminal link claim by Hinds – ATTACK ON JUDICIARY

THE JUDICIARY has condemned a statement by Minister of National Security Fitzgerald Hinds that "criminals have friends in the Judiciary," saying it has the "dangerous effect of undermining public trust and confidence in the Judiciary and the rule of law."

In a two-paragraph statement on Thursday, the Judiciary said it was "forced to condemn the unfortunate statement by the Honourable Minister that criminals have friends in the Judiciary."

The statement issued by the Court Protocol and Information Unit follows a chorus of condemnation of Hinds's remarks by at least 11 judges of the civil division, some of whom demanded "an apology and retraction" in a series of e-mails seen by this newspaper on the issue.

On May 1, in an address on state-owned television station TTT, Hinds made the comment as he responded to the April 25 ruling of Justice Devindra Rampersad in the matter related to firearms dealer Brent Thomas.

The judge had ruled in favour of Thomas, who had sued the state over his arrest and charges on firearm-related offences and criticised police conduct as well as Thomas's "abduction" from Barbados.

Asked to respond to the Judiciary's statement on Thursday,  in a brief telephone interview Hinds said: "I am a student of constitutional law. I am an attorney of law of Trinidad and Tobago of long standing. I was also called to the bar at Middle Temple as a barrister. I have always upheld the principle of the independence and integrity of the Judiciary and I always will."
He did not elaborate when pressed for further comment.

On May 3, Rampersad had an emergency hearing with the lawyers involved in the case at which he raised serious concerns regarding the minister's comment.

A GRATUITOUS STATEMENT

That same day, Attorney General Reginald Armour, SC, defended his colleague's statement, saying he had investigated and did not find it offensive.

"I am satisfied that it was not the intention of the minister, in any way, to impugn the integrity of the Judiciary of this country, either in any particular matter or generally," Armour said.

In its statement, the Judiciary referred to Armour's statement and described Hinds's reference as a "gratuitous statement" which "has no place in our country."

Armpur said, "In the course of his general remarks the minister made a statement that the 'criminals have friends everywhere in this country,' which statement could be interpreted, inferentially, to impact the Judiciary of TT. I have viewed the televised recording of the minister’s media conference which has given rise to the print reports appearing in the print media of the 3rd of May 2023. I have also spoken with the Honourable Minister. I am satisfied that it was not the intention of the minister, in any way, to impugn the integrity of the Judiciary of this country, either in any particular matter or generally."

Armour said Hinds, like all members of the Government, "has a healthy respect for the integrity and exceptional competence of our Judiciary" and issued the statement to put to rest "any doubt on this important subject, which must not allow any room for mischief."

In the e-mail correspondence, judges had called on the acting Chief Justice Allan Mendonca to issue a "strong and unequivocal release and condemnation" of Hinds's statement, along with a demand for an apology and retraction.
A notice issued by the Judiciary said Chief Justice Ivor Archie is out of the country until May 10.

AG EXACERBATED THE SITUATION

In a complaint raised by Rampersad to the acting Chief Justice, which was copied to other judges and Carl Francis, the manager of the Court Protocol and Information department, he  referred to Armour's statement, which he said, "totally skirted the issue and exacerbated rather than assuaged the situation.

"The minister directly stated that criminals have friends in the Judiciary. And this is in the clear context of a press conference called to address the issues arising out of the Brent Thomas decision that I gave last week in which a person who was charged by the police received relief from this court. If there is any inference to be made, one can arguably say that the general remark that criminals have friends in the Judiciary was also a pointed attack at the author of the judgment.
"The very fact that a remark can be made without any immediate response from our side that criminals have friends in the Judiciary not only undermines the administration of justice but impacts upon the security of each member of the Judiciary who may be perceived as friends of criminals," Rampersad said.

He referred to Hinds's recent enquiry about Justice Frank Seepersad's visit to the Port of Spain prison, which drew what some saw as a "weak and equivocal response" from the Judiciary. The judge said the minister seemed "emboldened by his immunity" and called for a "strong unequivocal release and condemnation of the statement along with a demand for an apology and retraction." He described the situation as "a very troublesome, disturbing and damaging state of affairs."

JUDICIARY MUST BE DEFENDED

Another judge said the minister's statement was "most unfortunate and in this climate where it appears that the Judiciary has been under continuous attack in political discourse, this matter must be swiftly and strongly dealt with."

"I hold the view that the integrity and independence of this institution must be defended. What is happening is simply unacceptable. With each passing week, the attacks and oversteps" by the minister "continue unabated," another judge said.

A senior judge said, "I am of the view that this statement may be viewed as an incursion over the boundary between the Executive and the Judiciary and as a stab at the heart of judicial independence. It casts a wide net that may have the potential of bringing the entire judiciary into disrepute. It does not appear to be fair comment, from which we are by no means immune.

"The juxtaposition of the judgment (of Justice Rampersad) with the timing of the statement makes it imperative that a response be forthcoming from the Judiciary as a matter of urgency. Not just any response but one that is reflective of the serious implications of the statement."

He also suggested that efforts be made to secure a retraction and apology in a manner that "does not publicly pit the Judiciary against the Executive."