Delinquent magistrates

APPARENTLY a large percentage of our magistrates suffer from the delusion that they need no further education or training to do their jobs or to progress in the service. This is the unfortunate conclusion we are forced to draw from the persistent refusal of several magistrates to participate in events organised for their benefit by the Judicial Education Institute headed by Chief Justice Sat Sharma. Such has been their repeated disregard for the programme presented by the JEI that the Chief Justice has now, quite properly, decided to read the riot act to the non-attendees. The action taken by Mr Sharma follows the two-day anti-money laundering workshop held at the Hall of Justice in Port-of-Spain last week which was summarily ignored by half the number of TT magistrates. The Institute went to great lengths to obtain the services of noted English Queen’s Counsel Andrew Mitchell who is regarded as an expert in this area. The workshop, in our view, was timely and relevant as the crime of money laundering must be quite prevalent having regard to the level of drug trafficking in TT and the use of the country as a transshipment point for narcotics moving from South to North America.

In these circumstances one expected that all our magistrates would be keenly interested in acquiring a deeper knowledge of the law covering this particular modern-day crime. But sadly, this was not the case; some 50 percent of the magistracy failed to turn up at the workshop and missed Mitchell’s in-depth presentation in which magistrates were enlightened about the wide-ranging powers they have under new anti-money laundering laws. As a consequence, the Chief Justice, in a sternly worded letter, has called on absent magistrates to provide written explanations “within a reasonable time” for their non-attendance at the workshop. In his letter, dated November  3, the CJ said he regarded their absence as a serious breach of their professional responsibility. He added: “It is my hope that in the future you will attend the judicial education programmes put on by the Judicial Education Institute so that I will not have the unpleasant task of taking the matter any further.”

We find the refusal of so many magistrates to take part in events designed for their own professional benefit quite depressing. Even in developed countries with greater opportunities for specialisation, the need for continuing education and training of judicial officers is well recognised and programmes for this purpose are regularly organised and well attended. In our view, such activity is particularly vital in TT where the only criterion required for the appointment of magistrates is the seven-year length of their private practice. But apart from their educational value, regular seminars and discussions among members of the magistracy must have other salutary benefits. It must be a healthy collegiate exercise for magistrates to get to know one another while discussing problems and offering suggestions for improving their delivery of justice.

Sadly, however, this is not the first time so many have disregarded such events. Their absenteeism was also high at a retreat hosted by the CJ at the Tobago Hilton some time ago. The event was a costly one since all expenses were also paid for the magistrates to attend. In our view, magistrates who refuse to participate in such exercises will have only themselves to blame if they should find their careers stalemated. The tax-paying public must also demand from them a greater commitment to enhancing their ability in the crucial job they perform.