JUDGE BUFFS JLSC

Attorney Wayne Sturge’s judicial- review claim came up for hearing before Justice Carol Gobin in the Port-of-Spain High Court, where the JLSC’s lawyer asked for additional time to provide the outstanding information to Sturge.

On Thursday, attorney Ian Roach, who represents the JLSC, wrote to attorney Gerald Ramdeen who is representing Sturge, with some of the information sought on April 19 in a request under the Freedom of Information Act about the appointments of attorney Kevin Ramcharan, magistrate Avason Quinlan-Williams and Ayers-Caesar.

While Ramdeen initially said he had no problem with the additional time being given, his position changed after Roach said he could not say for certain if the outstanding information would be provided. Gobin offered Roach the opportunity to consult with his clients or the chairman of the JLSC — Chief Justice Ivor Archie — and pointed out to him that if some of the information had been released, then his client should have had a position on the outstanding questions Sturge had asked.

“We judges are servants of this body (the JLSC), which has responsibility to be dealing with these things (the appointment of judges).

Why should we extend further time? Why shouldn’t we be told if they are going to disclose the information? Is it that they ignored the letter? “Someone considered eight of the 12 questions. At least you would expect the courtesy of a response as it relates to the others,” she said.

Roach explained that given the sensitivity of the application, he wanted to be properly briefed by the JLSC, since he had only been appointed last Wednesday. He also said the JLSC was not an exception to the rule of the tardiness in the public service. Ramdeen countered that there was absolutely no excuse for not responding to the request governed by the FOIA.

“It does not look well that after the period of time (stipulated under the act) has expired...there is no response from the JLSC,” he said.

Ramdeen also noted that under the Legal Profession Act, professional courtesies are to be extended to legal colleagues. “I am not satisfied.

There has been no acknowledgment of the letter. They have a duty to respond by a certain time. This is no ordinary body, this is the JLSC,” he said.

According to section 15 of the FOIA, the JLSC is mandated to respond by a request in no later than 30 days after the day on which the request was made. The matter was adjourned to June 9. In the request, Sturge noted that each candidate who applied for the position of Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court was required to take a written exam and to undergo a psychometric assessment by an independent service provider. Sturge sought a copy of the examination administered, the names of the JLSC members responsible for setting the examination and the names of the members responsible for marking it. He is also seeking the names of those who wrote the exam, the marks awarded to each, the name of the independent firm that did the psychometric testing and the tendering process involved.

In its response the JLSC said Archie and commission members Roger Hamel-Smith, Humphrey Stollmeyer and former member Parvatee Anmolsingh-Mahabir were responsible for setting and marking the examination.

It also said no consultations took place and the psychometric testing was done by Elder Associates, but was not introduced as a requirement for appointment but as a tool towards determining and assessing an applicant’s suitability for appointment.

“The mark obtained by a candidate is but one factor only that is taken into account in determining the applicant’s suitability for appointment and is not determinative of an appointment,” the letter said.