Justice Rampersad's statement of May 10

THE following is the full text of a statement made by High Court judge, Justice Devindra Rampersad, on Wednesday at a hearing at the Judiciary Courts, Tower C, International Waterfront Centre, Port of Spain.

His statement was made following the non-appearance of National Security Minister Fitzgerald Hinds, who Justice Rampersad had invited to appear in court to explain his comment that criminals have friends within the Judiciary.

ON 1 MAY 2023, Mr Fitzgerald Hinds, Attorney at Law and the Honourable Minister of National Security, in a live press conference called to inform and edify the nation in relation to this court’s judgment in this matter, made certain statements which were, to put it as politely as possible, rather unfortunate.

In an effort to defuse the potential damage, this court invited the parties in this matter to a meeting on 3 May 2023 with the respectful request that the first defendant i.e. the Honourable Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago, have a conversation, if he thought it appropriate with Mr. Hinds in the event that the latter may have mis-spoke or gotten caught up in the heat of the moment during that conference.

That invitation was graciously accepted by senior counsel for the first defendant with an assurance that he would do so without delay and that very afternoon, the Honourable Attorney General issued a statement indicating that he had spoken to Mr. Hinds and the Attorney General gave his impression and opinion as to the intention of Mr. Hinds.

Unfortunately, Mr. Hinds chose not to define his own intention nor what was in his mind for himself.

Recognizing the eminence of Mr. Hinds in the field of law as:

1. A barrister at law having been called to the Bar at Middle Temple in England;

2. An attorney-at-law having been called to the Bar in the Republic of Trinidad and

Tobago;

3. A postgraduate student of Government and Constitution;

4. An active practitioner of the law in this jurisdiction for many years appearing before

the courts at all levels in the judicial system;

5. A former police officer;

This court was of the respectful view that it should draw to the attention of Mr. Hinds the dangers of his remarks and remind him of his duties as an attorney-at-law and an officer of the court toward the courts in Trinidad and Tobago.

Consequently, on 5 May 2023, I directed the Deputy Registrar of the Supreme Court of Trinidad and Tobago to send a letter to Mr. Hinds which contained the following: “... the press conference was called to focus on the tremendous amount of discussion arising out of His Lordship’s decision in the matter of CV 2022-04567 Brent Thomas vs the Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago & Or. That much was made clear in the conference.

The press conference informed the public, amongst other things, that the police, conducting its routine daily police operations, had reason to engage Mr. Thomas and his company which led to charges being laid against him.

Your utterances proceeded to elaborate on one of the reasons for the press conference i.e. to clarify for the benefit, the edification of the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago, the deceit and deception that was raised last Friday, presumably in Parliament. The statement went on to highlight that criminals are attacking State institutions by lobbying and influencing people who hold high office in the country. That attack includes an attack on the judiciary, according to your good self, which of course includes persons who hold high office in the country.

Even further, you went on to say that criminals have friends everywhere in this country and I quote:

“And the criminals have friends everywhere in this country. They have them in the police service. They have them in the Customs, in the Immigration, in the Defence Force. They have them in the Judiciary. They have them in the Parliament.”

[Emphasis added]

You purportedly went on to say: “ ....but my duty, the Government’s duty, is to protect the people of Trinidad and Tobago from those who are about to attack it and dismantle everything in order to favour criminals.

In the judgment of which I spoke, I have read it and I have seen myself, as a practicing attorney, and I’ve already indicated to you, members of the public, that the Attorney General is in the process of further investigating these matters to the extent that he can...”

[Emphasis added]

His Lordship has a very serious concern that your comments may have brought the Judiciary into disrepute especially in light of your obligations as an attorney-at-law under the Legal Profession Act:

1) Part A of the Code of Ethics under the Legal Profession Act provides:

“IV. In Relation to the Courts and the Administration of Justice

36. (1) An Attorney-at-law shall maintain a respectful attitude towards the

Court and shall not engage in undignified or discourteous conduct which is

degrading to the Court.

(2) An Attorney-at-law shall encourage respect for the Courts and the Judges.

(3) An Attorney-at-law shall support Judges and magistrates against unjust

criticisms.”

2) Part B of the Code of Ethics under the Legal Profession Act which provides:

“19. An Attorney-at-law shall not engage in undignified or discourteous

conduct which is degrading to the Court or his profession.

20. An Attorney-at-law shall not wilfully make false accusations against a

Judge or magistrate”.

Having regard to the stated purpose of the press conference as mentioned in your

opening remarks and referred to above, one can argue that the comment in relation

to criminals having friends in the judiciary who may dismantle everything relates to

the judgment and the findings of His Lordship since:

1) Brent Thomas was charged by the police for certain crimes;

2) In the judgment, His Lordship made certain findings based on the law including

the very well-known cases of

a. R v Horseferry Road Magistrates’ Court ex parte Bennett ;

b. R v Latif, R v R, R v Shahzad ;

c. R v Mullen

d. Warren and others v Her Majesty’s Attorney General of the Bailiwick of

Jersey;

e. R v Maxwell .

3) Resulting in the staying of those charges and the return of items that were

seized on the purported search warrants that were pronounced against by the court

for the reasons stated therein;

4) Consequently, those orders can be viewed as a dismantling of the criminal

charges brought against Brent Thomas;

5) Thereby leaving a clear link to the impugned statement you made.

As a result, His Lordship wishes to invite you to a hearing of the matter which will be

held at 1 PM on Monday, 8 May 2023 at POS 09 in the Hall of Justice, Port of Spain in

order that you may clarify your position in person to the court in relation to a matter

which is still sub judice, especially considering your duties as an attorney-at-law and

an officer of the court.

His Lordship wishes to make it very clear that this is not a demand for your attendance and you are free to choose not to attend if you so desire. However, His Lordship is of the respectful view that your attendance would assist in clarifying any lingering doubts in that regard.”

The Vision of the Judiciary of Trinidad and Tobago is to provide an accountable court system in which timeliness and efficiency are the hallmarks, while still protecting integrity, fairness, equality and accessibility and attracting public trust and confidence.

The Judiciary of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, headed by the Chief Justice, comprises the Supreme Court of Judicature and the Magistracy. The Judiciary is the third arm of the State. The Judiciary is also established by the Constitution to operate independently from the

Executive as a forum for the timely resolution of legal disputes between individuals and bodies including the state.

The Judiciary includes:

1. The Honourable Chief Justice and 15 Justices of Appeal;

2. 45 High Court Judges comprising:

2.1. 18 Civil Judges;

2.2. 14 Criminal Judges

2.3. 11 Family Judges

2.4. 2 Children’s Court Judges

3. 20 Masters of the High Court.

4. 18 Magistrates, 12 Senior Magistrates, one Deputy Chief Magistrate and the Chief Magistrate.

If someone says that “criminals have friends in the Judiciary,” that statement does not only impact upon me personally but also impacts upon the other 112 Judicial Officers - all charged with the administration of justice in the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago as per their oaths of office.

We are not immune to criticism and often the Judiciary is the subject of legitimate criticism.

However, when one of its own officers, in the context of discussing a case before the court, a case which is not yet even completed before the court, says to the nation that “criminals have friends in the Judiciary” the obvious intention is to more than just criticize the Judiciary but to go further to suggest that, in some way, illegality is influencing the decisions of these Judges, Masters and Magistrates thereby jeopardizing the Judiciary as a whole. By doing so, this statement challenges the independence of the Judiciary and suggests to the nation that the integrity of the Judiciary is compromised by criminality. When viewed in the context of this case before this court, this statement and the innuendo is very damning. A statement and innuendo which this court can assure the nation is absolutely and totally wrong. I do not know Brent Thomas nor did I know of Brent Thomas before this case nor do I know any of his friends or family or acquaintances. No one has lobbied me in respect of this case.

No one has reached out to me about this case nor has anyone sought to influence me in any way. I have no friends who are criminals.

Some may say that this is being overly sensitive. I beg to disagree. When a cloud of illegality and criminality hangs over the administration of justice in the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, we cannot sit idly by and do nothing and hope that it will all blow away in time. Drop by drop, the water falls toppling even the mightiest of mountains. One has to therefore be very careful making statements which may seem innocuous at first but which carry a potent and damaging effect. Worse yet, if those statements are made without remorse. Then the drops turn into torrents and the torrents into floods and the floods into unimaginable damage.

In my respectful view, young persons looking on at this state of affairs are obviously going to feel that anyone can say anything about anyone or anything without regard to the truth because there is no sanction or consequence. And that is a serious threat to our society and is a grave source of disillusionment to right-thinking members of society. But, ironically, it is a source of comfort to the very criminality that so many in society decry.

This question and issue is not about race. It is not about politics. Those who choose to think of it in those manners would in fact be missing the point and may in fact be forgiven for doing so because this is how we have been taught to think. It is about the law and the truth and the courage to stand up for the truth. It is about honour and integrity. It is about respect - for the law, for the Constitution and for promises that are taken before the law to uphold the law.

The court views this matter very seriously and, for that reason, copied the letter that the court read from earlier to the Law Association of Trinidad and Tobago as the body charged under Section 5 Part 2 of the Legal Profession Act, Chapter 90:03 to:

“a. to maintain and improve the standards of conduct and proficiency of the Legal

Profession in Trinidad & Tobago;

b. to represent and protect the interests of the legal profession in Trinidad & Tobago;

c. to protect and assist the public in Trinidad and Tobago in all matters relating to the

law;

d. to promote good relations within the profession, between the profession and persons

concerned in the administration of justice in Trinidad and Tobago and between the

profession and the public generally;

e. to promote good relations between the profession and professional bodies of the legal

profession in other countries and to participate in the activities of any international

association of lawyers and to become a member thereof;

f. to promote, maintain and support the administration of justice and the rule of law.

g. to do such other things as are incidental or conducive to the achievements of the

purposes set out at (a) to (f).”

I have gone as far as I would like to go in this matter with respect to Mr. Hinds. I have in the past, in other matters in which attorneys appeared before me and where I was of a particular view as to their conduct under the provisions of the Court of Ethics, referred those attorneys at law to the Disciplinary Committee of the Law Association under the provisions of the Legal Profession Act. Mr. Hinds is not a party in these proceedings nor was he an attorney-at-law representing any of the parties in these proceedings so he had no obligation to be here. He was also not summoned to be here. In those circumstances, he has chosen to not attend today and that was his right because that was part of the invitation that was offered to him.

I do not wish to politicize any further step in this matter as this is not about politics. I do not wish to shape any narrative for and against any political party or persuasion. It is for that reason, I have deliberately referred to Mr. Hinds as Mr. Hinds, the man and the attorney. I mean him no ill will nor do I mean him any discomfort notwithstanding the fact that the feeling may not have been reciprocated. I just sought clarity against the background of all that I have said. I sought clarity and have not received it. The cloud still exists.

Today, I leave it to those who can be more persuasive than I have been able to be to try to remove that cloud.

/s/D. Rampersad J.