Privy Council to rule on conduct of Chief Justice

FORMER chief magistrate Marcia Ayers-Caesar will learn the fate of her judicial career when the Privy Council delivers its ruling on an appeal by the Judicial and Legal Services Commission (JLSC) on March 24.

The JLSC, chaired by Chief Justice Ivor Archie, challenged a Court of Appeal decision that found the commission acted unlawfully by pressuring Ayers-Caesar to resign as a High Court judge in 2017.

The Appeal Court ruled on October 12, 2023.

Five Privy Council judges were tasked with resolving this legal dispute after the JLSC’s appeal was heard in December 2024. A notice on the Privy Council’s website states that judgment is expected on March 24.

During the December 2 hearing, Senior Counsel Ian Benjamin, representing the JLSC, outlined the events leading to Ayers-Caesar’s resignation. Addressing Lords Reed, Hodge, and Stephens, as well as Lady Rose and Lady Simler, he detailed conversations between Ayers-Caesar and Chief Justice Archie, the JLSC’s deliberations, and its decision not to invoke Section 137 of the Constitution, which governs the removal of judges.

Benjamin argued that the JLSC’s approach upheld natural justice and legal protections. He insisted that Archie, whether acting as Chief Justice or JLSC chairman, conducted himself responsibly, transparently, and in compliance with the Constitution. He dismissed the Court of Appeal’s finding that Ayers-Caesar had been coerced, asserting instead that she was treated fairly and with compassion in a bid to minimise disruption to the judiciary.

“We ask the board to allow this difficult appeal, which arose from regretful and unfortunate circumstances,” Benjamin submitted, as he maintained that the JLSC did not act with malicious intent.

Representing Ayers-Caesar, King’s Counsel Peter Knox – alongside Senior Counsel Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj and Ronnie Bissessar – had urged the judges to consider the mental element of the case and determine whether the former magistrate should bear any blame.

“This is not, on the face of her case, a matter of judicial misbehaviour,” Knox had argued, adding that it would have been presumptuous to suggest her actions warranted a Section 137 investigation. He also pointed to an apparent misunderstanding between Ayers-Caesar and the Chief Justice regarding her backlog of unfinished cases.

The Court of Appeal, in its ruling, had unanimously declared the JLSC’s actions illegal and its pressure on Ayers-Caesar to resign unconstitutional. The panel – Justices of Appeal Allan Mendonca, Nolan Bereaux, and Alice Yorke-Soo Hon – held that Ayers-Caesar never legally ceased to be a puisne judge since her resignation was unlawfully obtained. The judges ordered her resignation letter removed from the President’s records and directed that she be compensated for the violation of her constitutional rights.

Ayers-Caesar, appointed as a High Court judge on April 12, 2017, resigned just 15 days later following public backlash over 53 unfinished cases from her time as a magistrate. She claimed she was forced to resign under threat that the President would otherwise revoke her appointment.

The Appeal Court further ruled that the JLSC’s April 27, 2017, decision – giving Ayers-Caesar the option to resign or face disciplinary action – was unlawful and violated Section 137 of the Constitution. Justice Bereaux acknowledged the JLSC’s concern for public confidence in the judiciary but said its actions exceeded constitutional boundaries.

“The commission may have believed Ayers-Caesar could resign and return to the magistracy. However, ‘well-intended’ motives do not justify bypassing Section 137’s safeguards,” he stated.

The judges criticised the JLSC for failing to conduct due diligence before appointing Ayers-Caesar, noting that its lack of investigation into her pending cases contributed to the crisis. Justice Soo Hon said this oversight ultimately led to the controversy surrounding Ayers-Caesar’s resignation.