Peter Knox KC & Robert Strang – Instructed by Broadfield Law UK LLP (London) (formerly BDB Pitmans LLP (London)) for the Respondent
Case ID
JCPC/2024/0016
Jurisdiction
Trinidad and Tobago
Parties
Appellant(s)
The Judicial and Legal Service Commission
Respondent(s)
Marcia Ayers-Caesar
Issue
Did the Judicial and Legal Services Commission act in breach of section 137 of the Constitution in procuring the Appellant’s resignation as a High Court Judge?
Facts
The Respondent, Ms Ayers-Caesar, was appointed as a High Court Judge on 12 April 2017. At the time of her appointment, the Respondent had before her a number of incomplete and part heard magisterial trials and committal proceedings. Subsequently, there was a public outcry about the Respondent’s appointment, with the Appellant, The Judicial Legal Services Commission, and the Judiciary coming under severe criticism about the large number of outstanding preliminary inquiries and summary trials not completed by her. At a meeting between the Appellant and the Chief Justice on 27 April 2017, the Appellant considered the impact of the Respondent’s part-heard matters and decided that the information about the Respondent’s non-disclosure of all her part-heard matters met the threshold for disciplinary enquiry under section 137 of the Constitution. The Commission also decided the Respondent be given the option of withdrawing from the High Court bench and returning to the magistracy and, in the event she refuses to withdraw, the Commission would consider instituting disciplinary action. Following a discussion with the Chief Justice later that day where the Appellant’s decisions were communicated to the Respondent, the Respondent resigned from the High Court Bench to return to the Magistracy. On 19 July 2017, the Respondent commenced judicial review proceedings in which she contended that her resignation letter was not effective because she signed the letter as a consequence of undue pressure being put on her by the Appellant. In particular, she claimed that the Appellant warned her that if she did not resign then her appointment would be revoked and that a media statement announcing her resignation had already been prepared by the Chief Justice’s office for her to sign. She therefore sought declarations that the Appellant’s decisions were unconstitutional, unlawful, null and void and of no effect. On 8 October 2021, the High Court dismissed the Respondent’s claim. However, the Court of Appeal allowed the Respondent’s appeal and made consequential orders to the effect that she continued to be a High Court Judge. The Court of Appeal subsequently granted the Appellant final leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
Date of issue
14 February 2024
Written arguments
Judgment details
Judgment date
24 March 2025
Neutral citation
[2025] UKPC 15
Judgment links
Appeal
Justices
Hearing dates
Full hearing
Start date = 2 December 2024
End date = 2 December 2024
Half hearing
Start date = 3 December 2024
End date = 3 December 2024
Share:
