LEAVE FRANK ALONE

“He is not responsible for nor has any control over the assignment of cases to his docket,” the statement, signed by Association president Douglas Mendes, SC, said yesterday. This follows allegations in a newspaper which questioned how Seepersad came to be assigned to three cases brought by lawyers closely associated with the United National Congress.

Mendes went on to note, as had the Judiciary on Thursday, that assignment of cases to judges is done through an electronic system administered by the High Court Civil Registry. “Neither can any inference be properly drawn from the alacrity with which he approaches his judicial functions or the efficiency with which he discharges them,” Mendes said.

Mendes also warned the media to be mindful that blindly repeating what is pedalled on social media, “serves only to legitimize unsubstantiated statements of persons who are not bound by a journalistic code of ethics.” Mendes made no specific reference, but on Wednesday the Trinidad Guardian published a front page story headlined ‘Judge Jitters’ which spoke of a, ‘dangerous cocktail of politics mixing with the judiciary’, and used social media posts in its story which raised questions and ridiculed Seepersad, for his case assignments although he was in Tobago, and his ability to pen a 22-page ruling within hours.

Only yesterday, the Trinidad Express, in a front page story, reported on a recently appointed judge’s social media postings, alleging some of his tweets on the Twitter platform were about women’s bodies and pornography.

Several tweets from High Court Judge Kevin Ramcharan’s Twitter account were published in the article.

Ramcharan was appointed in April along with former chief magistrate Marcia Ayers-Caesar and former magistrate Avason Quinlan-Williams.

SOCIAL MEDIA NOT CREDIBLE His tweets were said to be dated after his Supreme Court appointment on April 12. In his statement yesterday, Mendes said, “Tweets and social media posts may not be credible sources of news. Otherwise responsible members of the profession and society as a whole ought to also desist from posting, re-tweeting, sharing or circulating online messages, which unless substantiated, could only serve to undermine public confidence in the judiciary.” In his brief statement, Mendes called on the Registrar of the High Court to ‘take steps to ensure’ that any suspected attempts of ‘forum shopping’ were immediately brought to the attention of the Judiciary so that remedial action can be taken.

Allegations of ‘forum shopping’ - a practice adopted by litigants to get their cases heard in a particular court that is likely to provide a favourable judgment – were levelled against attorneys representing former UNC Senator Devant Maharaj.

These allegations were vehemently denied by Maharaj’s lead counsel Anand Ramlogan, SC, who said it was ‘preposterous and ridiculous’ to suggest there was anything untoward in the filing of the high court actions which challenged the implementation of the property tax and the composition of the JLSC.

“The possibility that an attorney may seek to manipulate the system by filing and re-filing proceedings until it is assigned to a judge of his liking is also beyond the particular judge’s control,” Mendes said.

Both of Maharaj’s cases were presided over by Seepersad, who granted injunctions in favour of the former politician. These orders have since been overturned by the appeal court. The coincidence of the same judge hearing the same claimant’s case over a matter of weeks have raised eyebrows, however, the procedure for the assignment of cases to judge has been clarified by the Judiciary in a statement on Thursday.

On May 25, six days after Justice Seepersad granted the first injunction in the property tax case, the attorney for the Chief State Solicitor Department, wrote to Supreme Court Registrar Jade Rodriguez questioning how the case came to be assigned to Seepersad.

The Registrar provided answers to the queries on June 5, the day before the appeal court heard the property tax appeals filed by the Commissioner of Valuations and the Attorney General.

In her response, Rodriguez said Maharaj’s judicial review application was first filed at the Registry of the Supreme Court sub-registry in San Fernando on May 18 at 3.18 pm - the same day Finance Minister Colm Imbert announced an extension to the deadline for citizens to file their document.

Maharaj’s claim was given a case number - CV2017-01837 - and was docketed to Justice Robin Mohammed. Rodriguez said the next day at 8.56 am, a notice of withdrawal was filed. Maharaj has said he gave these instructions to his attorneys since he needed to reconsider his case following the minister’s announcement of an extension.

CASE RE-FILED “From an administrative standpoint, it made better sense to discontinue and re-file the claim with the necessary changes,” Maharaj said. Rodriguez said a new ex-parte application was filed a few minutes earlier and this was given case number CV2017-01839 and docketed to Seepersad.

She explained that cases when filed in the civil court office are assigned at random to a judge selected by the computer automated docketing system. The Registrar added at the time of filing, no oral or written request was made by Maharaj’s attorneys but the attorneys asked for a hearing that day.

She provided an explanation on the process involved in filing a judicial review application. “The filing of an application for leave for judicial review is customarily treated with some urgency wherein the counter clerk enquires from the attorney’s clerk as to whether there is any urgency as to the date of hearing.

This information is then communicated by the counter clerk to the listing unit. “I am informed that this procedure was followed on the morning of the May 19, 2017, when CV20101839 was filed and the request was made orally by the attorneys’ clerk for the matter to be heard on the same day.

This information was communicated to the listing unit,” she said. In her eight page response, Rodriguez noted the judge’s Judicial Support Officer (JSO) was emailed with the notice and at approximately 9.37 am, the file was collected and the JSO Tracey Headley was instructed by Seepersad to arrange a court and to contact Maharaj’s attorneys.

This was done. Seepersad commenced hearing at 11.30 am at the San Fernando High Court, in open court. The order staying the implementation of the property tax was granted at 6 pm.

Rodriguez also said that attorneys for the Commissioner of Valuations were sent an email at 2.07 pm.

Told that attorneys for the State were informed by court staff that no Registrar was present when they made frantic efforts to ascertain whether an ex parte application was being heard, Rodriguez said although she and the assistant registrars were attending a seminar hosted by the Judicial Education Institute of the Judiciary, they were all available via telephone to deal with any urgent applications and were on call to deal with Maharaj’s matter.

She said at approximately 5.20 pm upon receiving notification that the case was still ongoing in the San Fernando Court, assistant Registrar Priscilla Rampersad proceeded to the San Fernando court and signed the judge’s order at 7 pm.

She also noted that the assistant Registrar did not place the penal clause on any of the five office copies of the judge’s order which were requested by the attorney.