What State attorneys said

We have noted the concerns raised in both the print and electronic media with respect to delay in the progress of the judicial review application in which the Honourable Chief Justice has challenged the Honourable Prime Minister’s representation to His Excellency the President that the question of removing the Chief Justice ought to be investigated. In this regard, we set out below a chronology of events charting the steps taken in relation to this matter.

The application for leave to apply for judicial review was filed on April 12 2005. In support of the application, two affidavits were filed, one by the Honourable Chief Justice and the other by Justice of Appeal Mr Stanley John. On April 13, 2005, leave to apply for judicial review was granted by Mr Justice Humphrey Stollmeyer.

On May 12 2005, three affidavits in response were filed on behalf of the Honourable Prime Minister. The deponents to these affidavits were the Honourable Prime Minister, the Honourable Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions. On May 16, 2005, a further affidavit was filed on behalf of the Prime Minister: the deponent to this affidavit was Justice of Appeal Roger Hamel-Smith.

At a status hearing held on May 13 2005, attorneys-at-law for the Honourable Chief Justice indicated their intention to file affidavits in response to those filed on behalf of the Honourable Prime Minister and they were given until June 21 2005 to do so. The trial of the matter was scheduled to commence on Monday July 18, 2005.

On June 23, 2005, Mr Justice Humphrey Stollmeyer drew to the parties’ attention his friendship with Justice of Appeal Hamel-Smith who was now a witness in the case and asked for the parties’ views on whether he should recuse himself. After receiving views from both sides, Justice Stollmeyer elected to recuse himself.

At further a status hearing of June 29, 2005, attorneys-at-law for the Chief Justice applied for and were given an extension of time to July 7, 2005 to file affidavits in response. The matter was adjourned to July 12, 2005 for a further status hearing. The trial date of July 18, 2005 was kept.

At the July 12, 2005 status hearing, now before the Honourable Mr Justice Carlton Best, attorneys-at-law for the Honourable Chief Justice sought a further extension for the filing of affidavits in response to July 19, 2005 which was granted. This necessarily meant that the trial date of July 18, 2005 had to be vacated. The Chief Justice filed his affidavits in response on September 26, 2005, along with a notice to amend his case in relation to the involvement of Justice of Appeal Hamel-Smith.

Prior to the case management conference on October 18, 2005, Attorneys-at-Law for the Chief Justice asked that the matter be referred to mediation. Having considered the gravity of the matter, and wishing to explore all available legal mechanisms which might assist in the resolution of an important and sensitive issue, the Honourable Prime Minister accepted the advice of his attorneys-at-law and agreed to participate in the mediation.

Mr Justice Ulric Cross and Mr Allan Alexander SC were appointed mediators. The mediation commenced on October 26, 2005, and lasted until May 12, 2006. The proceedings before the mediators are the subject of a confidentiality agreement and accordingly it would be wrong to reveal any of what passed between the parties. But it is appropriate to state that the Honourable Prime Minister and his attorneys-at-law considered that it was in the public interest that the best efforts be made and all avenues explored to find a workable solution, consistent with the Constitution, that would obviate the need for a hearing in open court. Regrettably, the parties were unable to find a mutually acceptable solution and on May 12, 2006 Mr Justice Best declared the mediation process at an end.

The matter was then carded for July 5 and 6, 2006 for the hearing of the Chief Justice’s application to amend his case and the Prime Minister’s application to set aside leave. After the Chief Justice’s application to amend was heard and determined on July 5 and 6 2006, the trial was adjourned to October 2, 2006, there being no mutually convenient date for all parties concerned in the months of July or September, 2006.

July 25, 2006

Douglas L Mendes SC

Stuart R Young

Michael A A Quamina

Counsels for the Honourable Prime Minister