JUDICIAL MONITORING

The context in which my name was mentioned may have given the impression that I visited the Chief Justice with a request for him to interfere with the ruling of a magistrate before it was given. I want to lay this possible misconception to rest immediately. Why this matter should have been included in the current interrogation of the Chief Justice and what was the reporter’s secret source of information are cause for speculation. But it does seem to confirm a view that many agendas are involved in the charges against the Chief Justice including leaks to the press.

I did visit the Chief Justice at the end of March this year for the purpose of making an inquiry as to where a complaint should be lodged about what I considered to be the arbitrary, incomprehensible and irrational procedures adopted by a magistrate in deciding a minor traffic matter involving myself. I did so with the knowledge that the Chief Justice is the Chairman of the Judicial and Legal Services Commission which is responsible for the appointment of magistrates.

I surmised that this Commission may also have had the authority to receive complaints against the manner in which magistrates carried out their judicial functions. I explained to the Chief Justice that I did not go the route of formally appealing the magistrate’s decision because of the added expense involved and my unwillingness to take up the Appeal Court’s time on such a minor matter as a traffic offence. Nevertheless, I was extremely dissatisfied with the magistrate’s modus operandi. The Chief Justice asked me to put my concerns in writing and address the letter to him, which I did. I also copied it to the Secretary of the Judicial and Legal Service Commission.

It is my view that what transpired in the hearings in this case has relevance for the efficiency with which the magistracy functions and for the judicial process generally, for the quality of judgments delivered and for the level of costs incurred by litigants who suffer in vexatious silence.

The facts of the case are revealing. On August 9, 2005, I stopped my car at the traffic lights at the intersection of the Golconda Connector Road and Shaffick Drive, Cross Crossing. I negotiate these traffic lights, which are in close proximity to my home, several times per day and I am aware that they malfunction at times.

On this day in particular the light remained red for an unusually long period of time. The vehicle in front of me turned left and drove off while the light was still on red. I looked in both directions and there were no vehicles on the road, a fact acknowledged by the complaints policeman. I proceeded left with caution for about 100 metres, only to be pulled aside by a police vehicle. A policeman came out of the vehicle and accosted me in a hostile and aggressive manner about violating traffic regulations.

I explained to him the circumstances about the erratic way in which the lights sometimes functioned, the fact that there were no vehicles on the road at the time and that the vehicle in front of me proceeded left with the light on red but the driver was not charged. The policeman refused to listen and issued me with a fixed penalty ticket of $200. I thought that, in the circumstances, this traffic charge was unjustified and decided I would challenge it in Court.

The matter came up for hearing on the October 24, 2005. This date was set by the complainant policeman himself on the ticket. However, on this date the policeman made no appearance in court. The matter was postponed to the February 17 2006 and for the second time, the policeman failed to show up. My attorney then requested that the matter be dismissed. The magistrate refused this request claiming that he had to satisfy himself that the policeman was properly informed of the postponement. My attorney argued that communication with the complainant was the responsibility of the police and/or the court bureaucracy and that the respondent litigant should not have to suffer the consequences of any lapse on their part.

The magistrate nevertheless postponed the matter for a third time while complaining about having to bear the burden of the most onerous work load of all the magistrates’ courts in San Fernando. At the third postponement (for a minor traffic charge) a full scale hearing was instituted. I pleaded not guilty. The complainant policeman was led in evidence by the police prosecutor and cross-examined by my attorney. Several inconsistencies emerged in his evidence. Then I took the stand, was led in evidence by my attorney and cross-examined by the police prosecutor.

In making subsequent submissions my attorney drew the court’s attention to the inability or refusal to charge the driver of the vehicle in front of mine for a similar alleged offence. The magistrate said that was not relevant. I was of the na?ve opinion that the Constitution of the country guaranteed certain fundamental rights among them being “the right of the individual to equality of treatment from any public authority in the exercise of any public functions.” And here I am being told by a magistrate that the enjoyment of this right is of no relevance to my case.

My attorney was also told by the magistrate that I had to prove that the lights were malfunctioning on that day. My attorney pointed out that the prosecution had not proved the contrary that the traffic lights at the intersection in question were in fact functioning properly on August 9, 2005. The magistrate declared that he had “gone past that.” (To be continued)

trevorsudama@tstt.net.tt