[UPDATED] Appeal Court rules JLSC forced Marcia Ayers-Caesar out of office

Coerced and forced out of office. This was the finding of the Court of Appeal on Thursday as three Appeal Court judges ruled that the Judicial and Legal Service Commission (JLSC) – chaired by Chief Justice Ivor Archie – acted illegally when it forced former chief magistrate Marcia Ayers-Caesar to resign as a High Court judge in April 2017.

Three judges – Justices of Appeal Allan Mendonca, Nolan Bereaux and Alice Yorke-Soo Hon – upheld Ayers-Caesar’s appeal over being pressured into resigning.

In a ruling on Thursday, the judges delivered three separate, but unanimous decisions.

They declared that Ayers-Caesar continued to hold the office of puisne judge of the Supreme Court of Judicature of Trinidad and Tobago “because her purported letter of resignation was procured by the illegal conduct of the commission.”

They ordered her purported resignation letter to be expunged from the records of the President and that Ayers-Caesar should be compensated for the breach of her rights.

The other declarations involved the JLSC’s decision on April 27, 2017, to give her the option of withdrawing from the high court bench and returning to the magistracy, but if she refused, the JLSC would consider disciplinary action against her.

Those decisions were declared ultra vires, null and void, and were quashed.

The judges also declared that the decision and its communication to Ayers-Caesar amounted to “illegal conduct by the commission because it was intended to threaten, coerce and pressure” her into resigning from office. This, they said, was not permitted by the Constitution.

“The result of such conduct was that Ayers-Caesar J was coerced and forced out of office.” They also ruled she was denied the protection of the law.

The judges also granted a stay of 21 days of their orders to give the JLSC time to decide on its next steps, if any.

Ayers-Caesar was appointed a judge on April 12, 2017, but resigned 15 days later amid public uproar over 53 unfinished cases she had been presiding over in the magistrates court. She said the JLSC acted unlawfully in seeking her resignation as a judge, unlawfully procured her resignation and acted unlawfully in treating her consequent purported resignation as effective.

She said the JLSC pressured her to resign in that she was told to sign an already-prepared resignation letter, or her appointment would be revoked by the President.

In her legal challenge, Ayers-Caesar asked for her purported resignation to be set aside, and for her to be reinstated as a judge, and compensated, saying her “resignation as a judge” was orchestrated.

She resigned on April 27, after meeting with the CJ and former president Anthony Carmona.

She said she made no decision to resign on April 27, nor was she “embarrassed” when the Chief Justice produced a list showing she had 53 part-heard cases.

Ayers-Caesar filed her judicial review claim in July 2018 against the JLSC and the Attorney General, also seeking relief against the president for refusing to set aside her resignation letter and reinstate her as a judge.

Trial judge David Harris dismissed her claim against the President. In 2021, he rejected her case against the JLSC and the Attorney General.

In their ruling, the Appeal Court said Harris erred, misconstrued and misapplied the law. As a result, it reviewed the case and the evidence afresh.

Bereaux’s decision was the most voluminous, at 74 pages. Mendonca’s decision was 44 pages long and Soo Hon's the shortest, at three.

In his, Bereaux said the decision to call on Ayers-Caesar to withdraw “had no sinister motive,” but “public interest considerations” that she should return to the magistracy to complete her many part-heard matters.

“...This was an emergency meeting called by the Chief Justice to consider the appellant’s conduct against a backdrop of public outrage. Prisoners with long outstanding preliminary enquiries had rioted.

“Unfortunately, in its zeal to pursue the public interest, the commission ventured outside of the parameters of its legal remit.”

He said Ayers-Caesar’s conduct was not under review, only that of the decision-maker.

“But noble though the motivations of the commission were, the importance of the office of judge of the Supreme Court of Judicature to the rule of law and to our democracy required that there be fidelity to the requirements of the Constitution, should an office holder’s conduct come under question.

“That did not occur here.”

He said earlier, the JLSC's decision was "to threaten to initiate the disciplinary proceedings if she refused to ‘withdraw’ from the office of puisne judge and return to the magistracy.”

Of the evidence, he also said, “The Chief Justice never denied that the threat was issued, rather he sought (after the fact) to downplay its force by saying that no final decision had been taken…”

It was quite clear, he said, why the JLSC wanted Ayers-Caesar to resign or “withdraw” from the bench.

“There was a need for a ‘quick fix.’ It was concerned with resolving the impasse of incomplete part-heard matters by sending Ayers-Caesar J back to the magistracy. But the section 137 process – which sets out how a judge can be removed from office – is not about ‘quick fixes.’

“The commission may have been of the mistaken view that Ayers-Caesar J could resign from her office as judge and return to the magistracy. However ‘well-intended,’ the commission cannot use its powers under sections 111 (1) and 137 (3) in that way.

“It has no power to ‘threaten’ disciplinary proceedings with the intention of causing the judge to resign.”

He said the reputational damage to a small country such as TT, to initiate the section 137 disciplinary process, could be significant.

“Thus, the mere threat of initiation of the section 137 procedure, is, by itself, sufficient to pressure a judge into resigning her office. A resignation procured in that way (as in this case) effectively removes a judge from office and bypasses the section 137(3) process with all of its safeguards.

“It undermines the 137(3) process itself. It undermines the independence of the judiciary. It undermines the Constitution. It undermines our democracy.”

He said the threat of disciplinary action was an empty one as there was nothing about her backlog of cases and poor management that could have triggered or met the section 137 threshold.

Mendonca also said the evidence pointed to “a threat made to or pressure or coercion put on her to resign,” which was not consistent with Harris’s findings that Ayers-Caesar’s resignation was “voluntary and motivated by feelings of embarrassment caused by her failure to disclose the outstanding part-heard matters and the unrelenting public discourse it caused and to reclaim her reputation.”

He also said, “The JLSC therefore sought to and did obtain the removal of the appellant as a judge...

“One may take the view that the entire part-heard issue is largely of the appellant’s creation and because of that the appellant might not be regarded in too sympathetic a light.

“Be that as it may, as the authorities to which reference have been made earlier make clear, section 137 provides an exclusive procedure for the removal of a judge and is a critical safeguard in securing judicial independence which is a vital element in any modern democratic constitution such as ours.

“It is the role of this court to uphold the rule of law.”

Soo Hon, in her reasons, said the JLSC was aware Ayers-Caesar had outstanding matters, yet appointed her a judge.

“Though these may have comprised mainly of paper committals, in my view this was enough to signal to the commission that the swearing-in of the judge ought to be postponed so that a thorough investigation could be conducted.

“It was the lack of due diligence on the part of the commission which has led to these unfortunate circumstances.”

She said she, too, was not persuaded there was evidence that the judge “had committed any act or acts” that fell in the scope of section 137.

“Certainly, there was no evidence that, as a judge, she either lacked the ability or temperament to perform her functions.”

Soo Hon said even if Ayers-Caesar's large caseload of part-heard matters raised an issue over her case-management abilities, those were not connected to her work as a judge, but as a magistrate, so the provisions of section 137 could not have been enabled on the ground of misbehaviour.

The JLSC was ordered to pay Ayers-Caesar’s costs in the trial before Harris and two-thirds of the appeal. No order of costs made against the Attorney General on the appeal. The JLSC must pay the costs Ayers-Caesar incurred in responding to their cross-appeal.

Ayers-Caesar was represented by Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj, SC, Ronnie Bissessar, SC, and Vijaya Maharaj. The JLSC was represented by Senior Counsel Russell Martineau, Deborah Peake, and Ian Benjamin, along with Ian Roach and Marcelle Ferdinand.

Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes, Ravi Nanga, Ravi Heffes-Doon and Savitri Maharaj represented the Attorney General.

This story has been adjusted to include additional details. See original post below.

The Court of Appeal ruled on Thursday that Marcia Ayers-Caesar was "coerced and forced out of office" as a High Court judge by the Judicial and Legal Service Commission, headed by Chief Justice Ivor Archie.

The three judges upheld an appeal by former chief magistrate Marcia Ayers-Caesar over being pressured into resigning as a High Court judge in 2017.

Ayers-Caesar sued the Judicial and Legal Services Commission (JLSC), headed by Chief Justice Ivor Archie.

The JLSC has the authority to appoint and discipline judicial officers.

In a ruling on Thursday, Justices of Appeal Allan Mendonca, Nolan Bereaux and Alice Yorke-Soo Hon delivered three separate, but unanimous decisions.

Bereaux read the court’s orders and declarations at a virtual hearing.

Among them is that the JLSC’s decision was ultra vires, null and void, and amounted to illegal conduct by the commission because it was intended to threaten and pressure her from resigning contrary to the JLSC’s powers under section 137 of the Constitution and was not a permitted form of removal from office.

They also said she continued to hold the position of Puisne judge of the High Court and ordered compensation for her to be assessed.

Her purported resignation letter to the President was also ordered to be expunged from the president’s records. The judges also granted a stay of 21 days of their orders to give the JLSC time to decide on its next steps, if any.

Ayers-Caesar was appointed a judge on April 12, 2017, but resigned 15 days later amid public uproar over 53 unfinished cases in the magistrates court. She said the JLSC acted unlawfully in seeking her resignation as a judge, it unlawfully procured her resignation and acted unlawfully in treating as effective her consequent purported resignation.

She said she was pressured by the JLSC to resign, in that she was told to sign an already prepared resignation letter or her appointment would be revoked by the President.

In her legal challenge, Ayers-Caesar asked that her purported resignation be set aside and she be reinstated as a judge, and compensated, saying her “resignation as a judge” was orchestrated.

Ayers-Caesar resigned on April 27, after meeting with the CJ.

She said she made no decision to resign on April 27, nor was she “embarrassed” when the Chief Justice produced a list showing she had 53 part-heard cases.

“I was threatened and told I had to resign or else the president would be advised to revoke my appointment,” she said in her testimony at the trial of the matter in 2020, denying that she chose to resign because she was embarrassed that the numbers had changed and she was being accused of being selfish.

Ayers-Caesar was represented by Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj, SC, and Ronnie Bissessar, SC.

Attorneys Russell Martineau, SC, Deobroah Peake SC, Ian Benjamin SC, Ian Roach appeared for the JLSC.