‘Politicians’ must interface with CJ

WHETHER the Chief Justice interfaces with the Attorney General or the Prime Minister, some interfacing with “politicians” is unavoidable.

According to Karl Hudson-Phillip QC, President of the Law Association, there is the need to have persons of integrity, balance and fairness holding the relevant offices. The association issued a statement yesterday following a meeting of the Council on Wednesday to discuss the address of Chief Justice Sat Sharma at the ceremonial opening of the 2003-2004 law term earlier this week. Hudson-Phillip said the Council took note of the comments of the Chief Justice concerning the relationship between the Judiciary and the Executive. “It continues to endorse the absolute requirement for total independence in the discharge of its role as the arbiter between citizens and citizens and between citizens and the State.” Hudson-Phillip, who is an ICC judge, said the Council has been aware for some time of the possibility of Government denying funds to a Judiciary with the intention of making the judges more pliant to the will of the Executive. He assured the Chief Justice that if ever such a situation arose, the association would be most vocal in support of the independence of the Judiciary.

Hudson-Phillip pointed out that in the past three years, two eminent jurists — Lord Mac Kay and Justice Telford George — expressed differing views as to how the administrative arrangements between the Judiciary and the Executive should be structured. The association’s president noted that the relationship with the Executive and the Judiciary was arranged in different ways in different countries. In some countries, the appointment of judges is subject to either direct election or parliamentary approval. He said that in Trinidad and Tobago, judges are appointed by an independent commission while the Attorney General “argues” the case of the Judiciary in Cabinet and answers questions on its behalf in Parliament. “The Council regrets any impression that because an Attorney General is a political appointee, for that reason he or she is incapable in some way of faithfully representing the views of the Judiciary to the Cabinet.”

On the issue of the appointment of Senior Counsel or “silk,” Hudson-Phillip feels that the association must have greater involvement in the process and regretted the statement that the conferring of Senior Counsel status was “a licence to print money.” The association’s president hopes that the Attorney General will continue to consult with the Chief Justice, and through him, all the judges. He also hopes that the Attorney General will consult with the association and that the independence of the legal profession will be respected and maintained. Hudson-Phillip said Wednesday’s meeting endorsed all initiatives by the Chief Justice to strengthen the administration of justice and in particular, the administration of criminal justice.