Privy Council rules that judge was unlawfully forced to resign

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on Monday delivered judgment in Ayers-Caesar v Judicial and Legal Services Commission [2025] UKPC 15, an important case concerning judicial security of tenure and the means by which, in Trinidad and Tobago, a judge may be removed from office. 

In Trinidad and Tobago a judge may only be removed from office in accordance with the provisions of s.137 of the Constitution. The Judicial and Legal Services Commission (JLSC) plays an important but limited role in that process. If a question arises as to misbehaviour or inability on the part of a judge, the JLSC makes a representation to the President that the question of removal of the judge from office be investigated. Before doing so, if in receipt of a complaint about a judge, it may enquire whether the complaint is sufficiently serious and cogent to warrant representation to the President; and in doing so it must act fairly. After making a representation it plays no further role. 

The Respondent in the present appeal, Madam Justice Ayers-Caesar, had been Chief Magistrate of Trinidad and Tobago. She had recently been appointed as a judge of the High Court when a row broke out over a number of outstanding matters she had left behind, part heard, in the Magistrate’s Court. The JLSC considered the matter in an emergency meeting. It decided, without hearing from Ayers-Caesar J, that the threshold for a representation under s.137 had been met. But it did not make a representation to the President. Instead, in order to quell the public controversy and address the outstanding part-heard matters, it decided that the Chief Justice (its chair) should ask Ayers-Caesar J to resign and return to the Magistrates’ bench. The Chief Justice met Ayers-Caesar J so on the same day; he told her that in his view her position was untenable, and that the likely alternative, if she did not resign, was a disciplinary referral under s.137.  

Ayers-Caesar J was persuaded to resign there and then. But afterwards she brought proceedings claiming that her resignation had been brought about by unlawful pressure by the JLSC, acting beyond its constitutional powers. The judge at first instance disagreed, but the Court of Appeal and the Judicial Committee found in her favour. 

The Board found, among other things: that the JLSC had acted unfairly in deciding that the threshold for a representation to the President had been met without first giving Ayers-Caesar J an opportunity to rebut the complaints made against her; that it had gone beyond its powers in persuading her to resign by the threat of a referral under s.137; and that the Chief Justice had failed to distinguish between his duties as chair of the JLSC, those in his role as administrative head of the Judiciary, and his pastoral duties as senior judge speaking to a junior colleague.  

The Board’s judgment confirms, as the Court of Appeal ruled, that Ayers-Caesar J remains a judge of the Supreme Court of Trinidad and Tobago. 

Peter Knox KC and Robert Strang acted for Ayers-Caesar J in the appeal before the Board, together with Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj SC of the Trinidad Bar, instructed by Richard Langley of Broadfield Law.  

Peter and Robert have assisted Mr Maharaj SC in advising Ayers-Caesar J throughout the proceedings, from the time of her forced resignation. 

The Privy Council’s judgment and press summary can be found at Marcia Ayers-Caesar (Respondent) v The Judicial and Legal Service Commission (Appellant) (Trinidad and Tobago) – JCPC