Disrespecting our institutions

The above quotation was taken from a speech given in 1985 by Mr Desmond Allum, then President of the Bar Association. It is clear from that statement that Mr Allum considered the Tax Appeal Board as part of the Supreme Court of Judicature.

I am referring to that statement because of recent newspaper reports that the Tax Appeal Board has been given notice to vacate the Hall of Justice. That brought about much consternation tinged with great sadness.

Let us go back a little. Up to December 1978, the Tax Appeal Board occupied premises on Abercromby Street on the site which now houses the Hall of Justice. Two Government departments, the Law Commission and the Office of the Chief Parliamentary Draftsman, also occupied that building. To make way for its demolition and the subsequent construction of the Hall of Justice, in January 1979, the Tax Appeal Board and those two Government departments vacated the building and moved to the newly constructed Park Plaza at Green Corner.

From the inception it was the intention that the Tax Appeal Board would be housed in the new Hall of Justice. To that end, officials of the Tax Appeal Board were fully involved in the design of that part of Hall of Justice which it now occupies. Regular meetings and consultations with the then Attorney General, the late Selwyn Richardson, as well as with the architects and others were held. The area to be occupied by the Tax Appeal Board was specifically designed to house not just the Court section, but also the Chairman and other members, the Library, the Registrar and all the ancillary staff. An examination of the plans of the Hall of Justice will reveal that.

When, therefore, the Hall of Justice was officially opened, the Tax Appeal Board moved in together with the rest of the Judiciary. The two Government departments that had also occupied the building on Abercromby Street remained at Park Plaza until they were moved to better accommodation. They were not part of the Judiciary.

In 1978 there existed in Trinidad and Tobago two superior courts of record established by statute. Those superior courts of record were the Tax Appeal Board and the Industrial Court. The Head of those two institutions, the Chairman in the case of Tax Appeal Board and the President in the case of the Industrial Court, received salary and allowances equivalent to Judges of the High Court. Their other terms and conditions were also equivalent to those of Judges of the High Court. With respect to the Chairman of the Tax Appeal Board, there existed one anomaly. The pension provisions applicable to Judges did not apply to him. Act no 24 of 1992 rectified that anomaly. By Section 1 (3) of that Act, that rectification was deemed to have come into effect on August 1, 1976 - some 16 years earlier when the 1976 Constitution took effect.

It must be noted that a person can only be appointed Chairman of the Tax Appeal Board (and President of the Industrial Court, if that person is not already a Judge) if he/she satisfies all the requirements needed to be a Judge. It is for that reason that the first Chairman of the Appeal Board, Mr Justice Cecil Kelsick, was promoted directly to the Court of Appeal and subsequently further promoted to the position of Chief Justice on the retirement of the late Chief Justice Hyatali who was himself appointed Chief Justice directly from the post of President of the Industrial Court — a position of which he was the first occupant.

Perhaps because the next three successors to Mr Justice Kelsick as Chairman of the Tax Appeal Board, the late Mr Justice Herman Besson, the late Mr Justice Harold Koylass and retired Madame Justice Monica Barnes all left to take up positions as Judge of the Supreme Court, the impression might have been given that they went on promotion. With the greatest of respect, it was simply a lateral movement resulting in no change whatever in their salary, allowances or other terms and conditions.

From the moment of conception of the Hall of Justice, and moreso because of the occupation of particular premises by the Tax Appeal Board and its status as a superior court of record, it was determined that the Tax Appeal Board would occupy the Hall of Justice together with the rest of the Judiciary other than the Industrial Court.

If, therefore, ownership of the Hall of Justice rests not with the State but with the Judiciary, the Tax Appeal Board is a co-owner together with the High Court and the Court of Appeal. Its share might be 1/12th 1/20th or even less, but it is a co-owner nonetheless. If that is so, then one co-owner cannot legally exclude another co-owner.

Therefore, the Supreme Court represented by the High Court and the Court of Appeal does not and cannot have any legal authority to give notice to the Tax Appeal Board to vacate the Hall of Justice.

EMERSON JOHN-CHARLES

Attorney-at-Law and Tutor

Hugh Wooding Law School