Daly slams CJs ‘misinterpretation’ talk

In a telephone interview on Thursday, Daly said, “When you look at the media release there are three sentences that cannot be interpreted than anything other than the language of a decision having been made.” He was referring to a letter an attorney representing the CJ wrote to former attorney general Anand Ramlogan,SC, in which he said “no such decision was made” at a meeting of stakeholders on May 24.

Ramlogan on June 12 wrote to attorney Ian Roach, who represents Archie, seeking answers on the consensus arrived at a meeting of stakeholders on May 24, when it was reported these stakeholders agreed to have all 53 cases restarted de novo (new trial). However, in his letter to Ramlogan dated June 20, Roach said, “Your letter proceeds on a wholly erroneous premise. My instructions are that no such decision was made in your letter.” On May 25, a release by the Judiciary’s Court Protocol and Information Manager Alicia Carter- Fisher, announced that a decision was made at the stakeholders meeting of May 24. In the release, Carter-Fisher said, “consensus was reached and the meeting agreed to have all 53 matters restarted de novo.” It was also announced that Ag Chief Magistrate Maria Busby-Earle Caddle would preside over all indictable cases, while all summary matters would be taken over by an assigned magistrate at the Port of Spain Magistrates’ Court. All other Eighth Court matters which were not started will be managed by the acting deputy chief magistrate, the statement further noted.

Speaking with Newsday on Thursday, Daly pointed to the key sentences of the release sent by the Judiciary on May 25, which he (Daly) said it were obvious consequences of a decision having been arrived at when the parties met with the CJ.

“It is not conceivable that it is a question of interpretation or misinterpretation as the Chief Justice’s attorney is now saying,” Daly said.

“It (the wording of the Judiciary’s media release) is entirely consistent with an administrative decision having been taken,” he said.

In his letter to Ramlogan, Roach also indicated that “no further directives were issued to any judicial officer as to how they should deal with the matters which may come before them.” He also told Ramlogan that “no person or persons arrogated unto themselves the power to determine the future conduct” of his client’s case.

“Your client’s legal representative is free to make any representations or submissions he considers appropriate before the presiding magistrate and have same dealt with at that time. That is the protection of the law and the right to a fair hearing that the Constitution guarantees to your client,” Roach further advised Ramlogan. Several of the affected part-heard cases are expected to be called next Tuesday.