WILLIAMS CALLS FOR REVIEW OF JUDGES

In a letter to the Editor, Williams said that while he fully supported security of tenure of judges, what would be the case if the assumed competence of a judge at the time of his or her appointment is seriously called into question by subsequent actions?

The call for a review of judges was prompted by what Williams described at the surprising "invitation to the jury by Justice Volney in a recent murder case to stop the trial if they wished." "I leave it to the legal fraternity to debate the merits of that decision," William said.

Williams referred to the Brad Boyce matter, describing himself as shocked when the judge (Volney) himself questioned Dr Hughvon des Vignes’ qualifications and moreso the manner of his so doing.

"While my experience is limited to that gained when I served as a juror many years ago, it was always my understanding that a juror could accept or reject the evidence of any witness, expert or otherwise. It is for this reason, that both the prosecution and the defence bring different witnesses, often to give contrary opinions. A juror is never directed to accept the evidence of an expert witness, based on his string of qualifications. He merely considers the witnesses’ special training," said Williams.

Williams said Dr des Vignes had been trained in Canada where his qualifications would be accepted.

"Justice Volney as the presiding judge introduced another expert witness, Dr Chandu Lal, to challenge the qualifications of des Vignes. Chandu Lal was not a witness for the defence, but for the judge, a most extraordinary procedure. Not surprisingly, the Privy Council overturned Volney’s decision," said Williams.

Williams also referred to the case against Prof Vijay Naraynsingh, where the DPP appealed against the magistrate’s decision.

"Newsday carried the entire case by the DPP, very comprehensive and thorough, warranting at minimum a response. My understanding is that the evidence consisted of several hundred pages — yet Volney threw out the DPP’s appeal in a few minutes. The kindest comment I can make is that Volney is a very hasty judge!"

Chief Justice Satnarine Sharma, who is also Chairman of the Judicial and Legal service Commission, yesterday explained that there is already a system in place to deal with the performance of judges. He noted that complaints against judges are investigated and the judge is disciplined if necessary. But Sharma said that many complaints against judges, when investigated, turn out to be frivolous. He said that a monthly report is sent to the Chief Justice and the performance of judges for that month is noted in that report, and judges faltering in their performance are summoned to an audience with the CJ to discuss the matter. He argued that one cannot access a judge overnight, but over a period of years.

Sharma said that judges are not infallible, they make mistakes and that is why the Court of Appeal and the Privy Council exist to help correct those mistakes. He said that when you are open to review, you subscribe not to a system that is fallible but one that is fair. He recalled that even the Privy Council in recent times has overruled its own decision.