Law Association concerned about JLSC's 'unlawful conduct' in Ayers-Caesar 'forced resignation'

THE LAW Association says it “remains concerned” about the findings of the Court of Appeal in the Marcia Ayers-Caesar ruling.

In a statement on Thursday, the association said, “While the Court of Appeal found no sinister motive on the part of the JLSC (the Judicial and Legal Service Commission) and that the JLSC was motivated by public interest considerations, the LATT remains concerned about what the Court of Appeal found was unlawful conduct which procured the resignation of a sitting judge.”

On October 12, the three most senior appeal court judges – Allan Mendonca, Alice Yorke-Soo Hon and Nolan Bereaux – ruled that the JLSC, which is headed by Chief Justice Ivor Archie, coerced and forced Ayers-Caesar to resign as a High Court judge in April 2017.

The three judges declared that Ayers-Caesar continued to hold the office of puisne judge “because her purported letter of resignation was procured by the illegal conduct of the commission…contrary to the provisions of the Constitution.”

In its statement, the association said the JLSC was perhaps the most senior of all service commissions, since it is chaired by the Chief Justice.

“The JLSC is uniquely important since it is part of the machinery to ensure that appropriate candidates are selected for the bench and as judges, they are protected from anything which may amount to an incursion in terms of the independent discharge of their duties.”

The association said the Appeal Court “made strong statements” on the need to protect the independence of the judiciary and it stood in support of that position.

There has been no decision yet on whether the JLSC will appeal the ruling to the Privy Council although Attorney General Reginald Armour told Newsday on October 13 that he was "taking advice for an immediate appeal."

As part of its unanimous ruling, the Appeal Court granted a stay of 21 days of its orders to give the JLSC time to decide on its next step, if any.

Ayers-Caesar was appointed a judge on April 12, 2017, but resigned 15 days later over 53 unfinished cases in the magistrates court.

She said her purported resignation was orchestrated and she was pressured to resign, since she was told to sign an already prepared resignation letter or the President would revoke her appointment.

In their ruling, the Appeal Court judges held that the JLSC’s decision on April 27, 2017, to give Ayers-Caesar the option of withdrawing from the High Court bench and returning to the magistracy, or, if she refused, the JLSC would consider disciplinary action against her, was ultra vires, null and void.

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

The judges also declared that the decision and communication of the choices presented to Ayers-Caesar amounted to “illegal conduct by the commission because it was intended to threaten, coerce and pressure” her into resigning. 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, since what was done was contrary to sections 111(1) and 137(3) of the Constitution, which deal with disciplining and removing a judge.

The judges said the JLSC had no power to “threaten disciplinary proceedings with the intention of causing the judge to resign.”

Bereaux, who wrote the lead decision, said the reputational damage to a small country such as TT in initiating the section 137 disciplinary process could be significant.

“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.”

Ayers-Caesar’s attorney, former attorney general Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj, SC, said the ruling was a “very important decision” which protected and enhanced the independence of the judiciary.”