Judge: Judiciary wrong on prison visits

A HIGH COURT judge has taken issue with a statement from the Judiciary on prison visits by judges.

On Tuesday, Justice Carol Gobin wrote to the manager of the Judiciary’s protocol and information unit, Carl Francis, about her concerns over the Judiciary’s statement sent out on the weekend.

The Judiciary’s statement came after Justice Frank Seepersad condemned what he saw as an attempt by a member of the Executive to “interfere with judicial independence” and the court’s exercise of its discretion and authority. Seepersad’s views concerned correspondence he received from acting Commissioner of Prisons Deopersad Ramoutar on his visit to the Port of Spain Prison in a constitutional claim brought by a former death-row inmate.

Deopersad said he wanted clarity on the judge’s request to visit the prison, and had been advised to ask by the Minister of National Security. Deopersad also wanted to know if it was "purposeful anymore for an on-site visitation" by the court.

This drew the ire of the judge, who spoke out about the letter and its alleged intent in an open court hearing.

The Judiciary’s statement over the weekend said while it was unusual for judges in the civil division to visit the prisons, judges and masters of the Children and Criminal courts have “quietly” done so.

The Judiciary said judges last visited the prisons and rehabilitation centre in February, and these visits were on the invitation of the Commissioner of Prisons, with the support of the Minister of National Security. The Registrar and the Marshal of the Supreme Court also make frequent visits in the capacity of the Marshal of TT.

Deopersad also questioned a request for the media to attend the court visit.

The Judiciary also said the Inspector of Prisons, who is appointed by the Minister of National Security, is responsible for inspecting prisons and examining prisoners.

The Judiciary also said the minister had the authority to make rules for the powers and duties of visiting justices, official ministers, ministers of religion and prisoners-aid societies.

However, Gobin says this is not the case.

In asking for a correction from the Judiciary, Gobin said, “The statement that you made as to the power of the Minister of National Security to make rules for visits to prisons by visiting justices and official visitors is erroneous. The minister has no such power. The prison rules which govern our prisons including visits were made under the West Indian Prisons Act of 1839. They were in fact made delegated legislation under the act of 1943... these rules remain in force even today.”

She said under the 1943 Prison Rules, section 11 provides that an official visitor may enter and inspect “at any time, any prison of the territory.” She also said section 14 declared the Chief Justice, the Executive Council, puisne judges and the Chief Magistrate ex-officio official visitors of the prisons.

Gobin, who visited the prison in 2007, in a similar motion, but one dealing with remand, said the Judiciary’s release was “perplexing.” She also questioned its timing, days after Seepersad’s comments.

“It suggests that for some reason the Judiciary felt it necessary to have a say after the judge expressed his concerns in open court. It is noteworthy that the honourable minister chose not to respond, perhaps after your release he did not see the need to do so.

“I find it surprising that instead of using the occasion to remind the executive and by extension the public at large, that court orders and directions are to be obeyed, you chose rather to advise the public that it it unusual for civil judges to visit the prisons and you then went on to inform that judges and masters of the Children and Criminal courts visit ‘quietly' on the invitation of the Commissioner of Prisons and with the concurrence of the Minister of National Security.”

She continued, “Surely, you appreciate that there is a significant difference between the visit by a civil judge who has ‘seen the need to visit the prisons’ in the course of a constitutional case and visits by judges who may be attending for other reasons however important they may be.

“Perhaps I should explain...A civil judge who has to decide on facts as to prison conditions removes himself from the comfort and security of the courtroom to hold a court hearing at the detention facility.

“It is not a social visit. The representatives of the parties are required to attend. The judge's judicial support officer has to call the matter formally and to keep a complete record of the proceedings.

“The hearing of a constitutional matter is required to be called in open court, the media is entitled to be present, even within prison walls when the judge convenes court there.

“The judge takes evidence, parties are given the opportunity to ask questions. There is no virtue in being ‘quiet’ about it..

“Could it be that you need to be reminded of the demands of open justice?”

Gobin opined that it appeared the point of the Judiciary’s release was an effort to “justify the power of a minister, a member of the executive to question whether a judge's visit would be ‘purposeful,’ while providing authority for it when there was none.

Gobin called on Francis to correct the Judiciary’s “error on the law,” and said judges did not need to ask permission of either the commissioner of prisons or the minister to visit a penal institution.

“In the current climate, judges throughout the Judiciary, but more so those who sit in open courts are easy targets for attacks not just from parties to litigation but from the citizens who blame us for crime, for being soft on sentencing; for granting bail even when the law provides for it; for protecting prisoners and criminals, upholding their constitutional rights while law-abiding citizens suffer the savagery of a crime situation gone out of control.

“One can well understand the sentiments of the public given the level of despair. Judges continue to to discharge our constitutional duty in spite of increasing threats to security. Should we not expect support from within?”