Promoted T&T magistrate accused of misleading judicial service commission
(Trinidad Guardian) Marcia Ayers-Caesar now stands accused of misleading Chief Justice Ivor Archie and members of the Judicial and Legal Service Commission (JLSC) and will not be returning to the bench of the Magistrates’ Court any time soon.
Breaking its silence on the raging controversy yesterday, the JLSC, which is headed by Archie, admitted Ayers-Caesar provided the JLSC with a list of outstanding matters. However, it said it was only after the prisoners’ riot at the Port-of-Spain Magistrates’ Court that an audit conducted by the Acting Chief Magistrate determined that contrary to what they were told by Ayers-Caesar, she actually had over 50 matters outstanding.
The JLSC said had it “been aware of this state of affairs before April 12th, the Office of the President would have been requested to postpone the appointment of Mrs Ayers-Caesar.” It noted that two candidates who were ahead of her in the selection process requested and were given time to complete their outstanding matters.
Giving some background, the JLSC said in April of 2016 notices of vacancies to the High Court Bench were published locally and internationally and short-listed candidates were invited to participate in the assessment process. This process involves a face to face interview, written assessment, review of samples of the candidates’ written work, submissions by referees and psychometric testing, and was done between January to February 2017. On March 15, 2017, successful candidates were informed of their selection based on the outcome of the process.
The JLSC said during recruitment interviews, candidates are routinely asked when they will be in a position to assume duty and this requires full and frank disclosure from the candidate, as it guides the management of the transition to the office if the applicant is successful.
It said the CJ sought the assurance of both Ayers-Caesar and Avason Quinlan-Williams, who were in the Magistracy at the time of their appointment, that they were not leaving behind work that would negatively impact the Judiciary or their colleagues. The JLSC noted there is no electronic case management in the Magistracy, thus making it impossible for it to check the case files of a successful applicant from the Magistracy.
“Reasonable ‘due diligence’ is satisfied by seeking an assurance that the appointee has done all that is required with respect to his/her professional obligations to put themselves in readiness to assume duty,” the JLSC said.
But on April 9, after he became aware that some disquiet had seeped into the public domain about Ayers-Caesar’s pending elevation to the High Court Bench, the JLSC said CJ tried unsuccessfully to reach her by phone. He was only able to do so on April 10 and enquired whether she had any outstanding part-heard matters. Ayers-Caesar is said to have “assured the Chief Justice that, apart from three short trial matters which for reasons beyond her control could not be completed within a reasonably short time, all she had outstanding a few ‘paper committals’ which could be restarted by another magistrate without incurring undue delay.”
The statement said the CJ also “took the precaution of asking her to provide a written list with short explanations which she did on the evening of April 10.” However, the list, “omitted any information about the nature and seriousness of the offences.” Having looked at her statement, the CJ is said to have followed up with a telephone conversation in which Ayers-Caesar reiterated she had no other outstanding matters. However, it said after “a sustained chorus of protest arose” from prisoners and attorneys about the hardship and dislocation by her ‘sudden’ elevation” and in response to concerns raised by stakeholders and the media, it asked her to provide an explanation, vet and approve a press release intended to address those concerns.
In light of this, the CJ is said to have asked acting Chief Magistrate Maria Busby Earle-Caddle to conduct an audit to ascertain the true state of affairs. That report, according to the JLSC, “provided evidence that the list of outstanding matters was much larger than he (CJ) had been led to believe and that many of them were quite substantial matters in which several witnesses had already been cross examined.” In fact, it said the total number of Ayers-Caesar’s matters was found to be in excess of 50.
No surety of return to bench
The matter of the new list was raised with Ayers-Caesar and the CJ raised it with other JLSC members at an emergency meeting on April 27. It said at the meeting the JLSC was unanimous in its view that “if the second list represented the true state of affairs, it could seriously erode public confidence in the administration of justice and, by extension, the whole selection process as it was apparent from comments in the public domain that no distinction was being drawn in the minds of many observers between the selection process and Mrs. Ayers-Caesar’s management of her transition to the High Court Bench.”