‘You can’t transfer me’

Deputy Chief Magistrate Deborah Thomas Felix took legal action yesterday against Chief Magistrate Sherman Mc Nicolls, challenging his decision seven months ago to assign her to the San Fernando Magistrate’s Court. She is saying that the Chief Magistrate had no power to transfer her and that his decision was irrational and an abuse of power that  violated her constitutional rights to equality of treatment. She is also asking for damages in her matter which is listed to come up before Justice Mark Mohammed today in the Port-of-Spain Fifth Civil Court. Thomas-Felix, who filed for Judicial Review of Mc Nicolls’ decision yesterday, became the centre of controversy a few months ago when she was assigned to the San Fernando Magistrate’s Court while listed in Port-of-Spain to hear  the case of former Prime Minister Basdeo Panday who is on  three charges  under the Integrity In Public Life Act. Her transfer meant that Mc Nicolls would hear the high profile case instead of her. 

Thomas-Felix submitted a medical certificate which stated that she had a back problem and could not undertake the drive to San Fernando every day. She eventually, however, began sitting in the San Fernando Court. In the meantime,  Mc Nicolls has been hearing the Panday case. At the time, a source informed Newsday that in 1980, Cabinet approved a recommendation that the position of DCM had to be based in Port-of-Spain to hear matters of major importance and high profile cases. Accompanying her application which was  filed in the Registry of the Port-of-Spain High Court, was a large bundle of documents and correspondence between herself and McNicolls. In her documents filed by the law firm of Boynes and Co, Thomas-Felix is saying that Mc Nicolls’s decision on January 8, 2003 to assign her to San Fernando was ultra vires the Constitution in that it usurped the exclusive powers of the Judicial and Legal Service Commission to transfer the DCM. Further, she is claiming  that in so far as Mc Nicolls purported to act pursuant to section 15 (1) of the Judicial and Legal Service Act, that section was ultra vires the Constitution and is null and void.
 
Another ground which will be  argued  is that the said decision of MC Nicolls  was taken in violation of the principles of fairness and or natural justice in that she was not given an opportunity to be heard. On the fourth ground, Thomas-Felix is claiming that the decision on January 8, 2003 which did not change on February 12, or in the months June and July was irrational and or in violation of her constitutional right to equality of treatment. Finally, she intends to argue that she was  deprived  of her legitimate expectation that she would be assigned to the Port-of-Spain court and that the decision of Mc Nicolls to send her to San Fernando constituted an abuse of power and or a violation of the principles of fairness and or natural justice. Thomas-Felix is asking  for an order of certiorari, which is to bring the records of her matter before the court, and to quash Mc Nicolls’ decision. Alternatively an order of mandamus (command from a higher court)  directing Mc Nicolls to revoke his decision.