Incorrect reporting of court hearing

THE EDITOR: Please permit me to draw to your attention a misleading report of the March 16, 2004 Court hearing of the matter of Devant Maharaj vs SASC before the Honourable Mme Justice Dean-Armorer, appearing on page seven of the Newsday of even date, and entitled “PM has seven days to respond to lawsuit.” The unnamed writer reports that a plea was made for an urgent hearing of the matter. In his final paragraph, your reporter states that: “Despite this, the judge said she was unable to accommodate the matter on her list owing to previous fixtures of cases on her list.” This is inaccurate.

The facts in the matter are set out hereunder:
(i) On March 16, attorneys-at-law appeared for the respondent and two interested parties: the Honourable Prime Minister and Mr Louis Lee Sing.
(ii) Attorneys for the respondent and the interested parties sought the Court’s leave to file affidavits in response. The respondent and the first interested party requested leave to file affidavits within seven days. The second interested party sought the Court’s leave to file affidavits within 15 days. The applicant then asked for leave to reply within seven days thereafter.
(iii) The timetable fixed for the filing of affidavits precluded an adjournment for the substantive hearing before April 6, 2004 when Mme Justice Dean-Armorer is rostered to sit in the High Court in Tobago.
(iv) The Honourable Judge explained to the attorneys that it was not proper for her to place the matter on another Judge’s list and that the proper procedure would be for them to approach the Listing Clerk, whose duty it would be to liaise with the relevant Judge, who would place the matter on his cause list. Mme Justice Dean-Armorer then adjourned the matter to the next available cause list.
(v) Your writer’s report that the Judge could not accommodate the matter on her list “owing to previous fixtures of cases on her list” is therefore wholly inaccurate and misleading.
I bring this matter to your attention and request that in the name of responsible journalism, your newspaper publish with the prominence which it merits, an unambiguous retraction of the erroneous content of your report.

MICHAEL ANTHONY LILLA
Court Protocol and Information Officer

Editor’s Note: The report appeared on Wednesday March 17 and not on March 16 as stated by Mr Lilla.