Queries over AG's attempt to enter JLSC vs Ayers-Caesar case

CONCERNS have been raised about a potential conflict of interest involving government in the legal battle between the Judicial and Legal Service Commission (JLSC), led by Chief Justice Ivor Archie, and High Court judge Marcia Ayers-Caesar.

In July, the Attorney General sought to intervene in the appeal before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. However, on October 3, the Privy Council denied the AG’s application.

The Attorney General’s legal team argued in its application that, under the State Liability and Proceedings Act, any legal action against a constitutional authority, such as a service commission, is considered a proceeding against the State.

The application said that if the Privy Council upheld the Court of Appeal’s ruling, the State would be responsible for any damages awarded to Ayers-Caesar for violation of her rights.

“The applicant accordingly wishes to be heard on the appeal as the Attorney General, on behalf of the State, has a material interest in the outcome of the appeal,” the application said.

The application also outlined six grounds of appeal challenging the Court of Appeal's 2023 ruling.

The State argued that the Court of Appeal erred in reversing the trial judge’s findings of fact; erred in determining that the JLSC coerced and pressured Ayers-Caesar into resigning and wrongly ruled that the JLSC’s indication that it could pursue disciplinary action against Ayers-Caesar was null and void.

The State also claimed the Court of Appeal incorrectly found that the JLSC’s communication with Ayers-Caesar on April 27, 2017, constituted illegal conduct despite a lack of supporting evidence; erred in ruling that Ayers-Caesar’s resignation letter was illegally obtained and should be expunged from the President’s records and incorrectly concluded that Ayers-Caesar was unconstitutionally removed from office and was entitled to compensation.

Questions are now being raised about whether the government would be conflicted in making any recommendation under Section 137 of the Constitution, which deals with the removal of a Chief Justice and judges.

One senior attorney said the government should not have sought to intervene at the Privy Council since “it would be the very same government who will be called on to trigger a section 137.”

Questions sent to Attorney General Camille Robinson-Regis and the State’s attorney in the application were unanswered.

On March 25, prominent attorney and head of the Criminal Bar Association Israel Khan, SC, led a one-man protest on the steps of the Hall of Justice, Port of Spain calling on Archie to resign for the role he played in the pressure put on Ayers-Caesar to resign as a judge.

Failing a voluntary resignation, Khan demanded that the Prime Minister utilise Section 137 to initiate a tribunal to formally investigate Archie's conduct in the Ayers-Caesar matter, with the ultimate sanction from this tribunal being that he is removed as Chief Justice.