Law Lords: CJ did nothing wrong

THE Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has ruled that Chief Justice Sat Sharma did nothing wrong when he swore in members of  the Regional Judicial and Legal Service Commission at the Hall of Justice, Port-of-Spain, on August 21 last year. The Law Lords did not even go into the merits of a judicial review application brought by UNC Member of Parliament Chandresh Sharma against the decision of the Chief Justice to swear in the Commissioners. The  Commissioners are responsible for the recruitment of the president, judges and support staff for the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ). The Privy Council dismissed Chandresh Sharma’s application for leave and ordered him to pay costs. Dr Fenton Ramsahoye SC, instructed by Anand Ramlogan appeared for Sharma, while English Queen’s Counsel James Dingemanns, instructed by John Almeida, represented the Attorney General.

The Privy Council comprised Lords Bingham, Steyn, and Scott. MP Sharma sought judicial review of the decision of the Chief Justice to swear in the Commissioners,  two of whom — Kenneth Lalla SC and Allan Alexander SC — are nationals of Trinidad and Tobago. MP Sharma contended that Trinidad and Tobago did not pass legislation to make the CCJ its final Court of Appeal. As a result, it was therefore wrong for the CJ to swear in the Commissioners, especially the Trinidad and Tobago nationals at a ceremony in Port-of-Spain — the chosen headquarters for the CCJ. The UNC MP also argued that CJ Sharma appointed the Commissioners on the instructions  of the executive. However, Justice Peter Jamadar, in a seven-page judgment, pointed out that the Chief Justice, acting on behalf of the conference heads of the judiciary of the member states of the Caribbean Community, issued an invitation to witness the installation of the members of the Regional Judicial and Legal Service Commission. He said there was no evidence that the executive instructed the CJ to perform the functions.

MP Sharma appealed to the Court of Appeal which also dismissed his application. He sought leave under the Judicial Review Act to appeal to the Privy Council, but this was rejected by the local Court of Appeal. MP Sharma then took his case straight to the Privy Council. In England, Dr Ramsahoye submitted that the refusal of the local Court of Appeal to grant leave affected the rights of the citizens of this country to appeal to the Judicial Committee from any decision of the local Court of Appeal. Dr Ramsahoye argued that this was an evil precedent which was bound to cause problems locally in relation to any matter coming before the Court of Appeal on judicial review. Lord Bingham said that since the Court of Appeal had not given written reasons for their decision in refusing leave, “it was unlikely that the Court of Appeal’s reasoning for dismissing the application for leave was widely known and therefore of little consequence.”

Dr Ramsahoye also argued that there was good prospect that the Court of Appeal would use the same reasoning on future applications to refuse leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee. Lord Steyn pointed out that if this happens in the future and the application is of substance, then the Law Lords would obviously have to consider their position. The Law Lords made it quite clear that the main complaint on which the Member of Parliament applied was wrong, and was bound to fail. The Law Lords said that there was nothing wrong with what CJ Sharma did because the CCJ Treaty has not yet been made part of the domestic law of this country.

They agreed that CJ Sharma was performing certain duties in accordance with an international treaty. The Law Lords said the Chief Justice’s decision did not affect anyone’s rights. They made it quite clear that if any rights had been affected, the decision would have been different. Several Caribbean countries have already passed legislation to make the CCJ the final appellate court replacing the Privy Council. This country’s Parliament has not yet debated the legislation, although the CCJ is to be inaugurated in November in Port-of-Spain.