Computer selects judges for cases

“The system is further supported by a Calendaring and Case Management Committee should there be the need for a judge to recuse him or herself or the judge is unable to sit for any reason after random assignment, or to address any problems relating to assignments under the system,” she said.

Questions on the assigning of cases were raised on Wednesday following a front page story in the Trinidad Guardian which spoke of an alleged ‘dangerous cocktail of politics mixing with the judiciary’, in the assignment of Justice Frank Seepersad to two cases filed by a former UNC minister.

That newspaper article claimed questions were the subject of ridicule about how Justice Frank Seepersad was assigned Devant Maharaj’s injunction application against the JLSC, to stop the swearing in of two new judges; as well as his earlier ruling in support of a similar stay to temporarily halt the implementation of the property tax.

In the JLSC challenge, Seepersad was in Tobago and that newspaper article drew reference to his ability to deliver a 22-page ruling. In its statement, Carter- Fisher said the application for the injunction to stay the swearing in of two new judges was filed as part of Maharaj’s substantive case against the JLSC.

She added that Justice Seepersad was already assigned the substantive matter by the computerised system. Carter-Fisher also said the injunction application was never brought before Justice Margaret Mohammed, contrary to a media report also in the Trinidad Guardian.

“Further, the conduct of a hearing by video conferencing is not unusual and has been a feature of the civil court operations since the implementation of the Civil Proceedings Rules in 2005. Video Conferencing is one of the modes of hearing matters at any stage of proceedings. It is designed to ensure access to justice where the parties and/or attorneys-at-law are physically unable to attend the designated court to have their cases heard by the assigned Judicial Officer,” Carter-Fisher said.

“The Judiciary is committed to best practices in the delivery of justice. The institution aims to ensure that members of the public have continuing access to Judicial Officers who are dedicated to the just and expeditious disposition of all matters. Equity and integrity remain among the core principles which inform and guide the institution’s decision making whilst maintaining at all times the independence of Judicial Officers and the Judiciary as a whole,” the statement added.