The Judicial and Legal Service Commission (JLSC) has been granted final leave to pursue its appeal before the United Kingdom-based Privy Council, over a lawsuit brought by former chief magistrate Marcia Ayers-Caesar.
The issue was decided by the Court of Appeal without a hearing on Friday, based on the consent of the parties.
In April 2017, Ayers-Caesar was appointed a judge, but resigned 15 days later after an outcry over some 53 cases she had outstanding in the magistrates court.
In her lawsuit, she said she did not decide to resign on April 27, 2017, but was pressured to do so by being made to sign an already-prepared resignation letter and told if she did not, the President would revoke her appointment.
Ayers-Caesar claimed that she was pressured by Chief Justice Ivor Archie and the JLSC.
She also contended that former president Anthony Carmona, who is also a former High Court Judge, refused to intervene after she informed him of Archie and the JLSC’s conduct.
Archie and the JLSC denied any wrongdoing and claimed that Ayers-Caesar’s failure to disclose the full extent of her unfinished caseload was sufficiently serious to warrant a disciplinary inquiry.
Archie had claimed that he had suggested resigning and returning as a magistrate to complete the cases, but maintained that he did not pressure or threaten her. He also claimed that neither he nor the JLSC had the power to take the action attributed to it by Ayers-Caesar.
While Ayers-Caesar’s case was at a preliminary stage, the Office of the Attorney General filed an interpretation lawsuit to help determine what should happen to her unfinished case-load.
However, most of the cases were restarted and completed by Ayers-Caesar’s successor Maria Busby-Earle-Caddle before the case was determined by High Court Judge Carol Gobin in 2020.
Justice Gobin eventually ruled that all the cases would have to be restarted, as there was no legal provision for them to be completed before a fresh magistrate.
Ayers-Caesar’s lawsuit was eventually dismissed by High Court Judge David Harris, leading to the challenge before the Court of Appeal.
In their judgment on October 12 last year, Appellate Judges Allan Mendonca, Nolan Bereaux and Alice Yorke-Soo Hon ruled that the issue of Ayers-Caesar’s case management as a magistrate was insufficient for her to be removed under Section 137 of the Constitution.
Under this segment of the Constitution, judges can only be removed for misbehaviour or their inability to perform the functions of the office due to infirmity of the mind or body.
A tribunal is appointed by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister in the case of the Chief Justice and the JLSC for judges.
The tribunal investigates and then recommends whether the Privy Council should consider if the judge should be removed.
The judges all wrote separate but consistent judgments in which they criticised the JLSC, which is chaired by Archie, for improperly and illegally pressuring Ayers-Caesar to resign.