Ayers-Caesar v The Judicial and Legal Service Commission (Trinidad and Tobago)

Hilary Term

[2025] UKPC 15

Privy Council Appeal No 0016 of 2024

JUDGMENT

Marcia Ayers-Caesar (Respondent)

 v

The Judicial and Legal Service Commission (Appellant) (Trinidad and Tobago)

From the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago

before

Lord Reed

Lord Hodge

Lord Stephens

Lady Rose

Lady Simler

JUDGMENT GIVEN ON

24 March 2025

Heard on 2 and 3 December 2024

Appellant

Ian L Benjamin SC

Ian Roach

Tamara Toolsie

(Instructed by Charles Russell Speechlys LLP (London))

Respondent

Peter Knox KC

Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj SC

Ronnie Bissessar SC

Robert Strang

Varin Gopaul-Gosine

(Instructed by Broadfield Law UK LLP (London) (formerly BDB Pitmans LLP (London)))

Lord Reed:

1.         Introduction

1. This is an appeal against an order dated 12 October 2023 made by the Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago (Mendonça, Yorke-Soo Hon and Bereaux JJA) in proceedings brought by Marcia Ayers-Caesar ("the claimant"), who served as a judge of the High Court between 12 and 27 April 2017, against the Judicial and Legal Service Commission ("the Commission"). By its order the Court of Appeal set aside the orders made by Harris J in the High Court, with the exception of certain orders made in favour of the Attorney General, and granted declarations which can be summarised as follows:

(1)              The decision made by the Commission on 27 April 2017 that (a) the claimant be given the option of withdrawing from the High Court bench and returning to the magistracy to discharge her professional responsibilities, and (b) in the event that she refused to withdraw, the Commission would consider instituting disciplinary action in accordance with section 137 of the Constitution, was ultra vires section 137(3) of the Constitution, and accordingly null and void.

(2)              The Commission's decision of 27 April 2017 and the communication of that decision to the claimant amounted to illegal conduct by the Commission because it was intended to threaten, coerce and pressure her into resigning from office, contrary to the Commission's powers under section 137(3) of the Constitution. The result of such conduct was that the claimant was coerced and pressured into resigning her office, a form of removal from office not permitted by the Constitution.

(3)              The claimant continued to hold the office of puisne judge of the Supreme Court (ie a High Court judge other than the Chief Justice) because her purported letter of resignation was procured by the illegal conduct of the Commission and was null, void and of no effect.

(4)              By removing the claimant from office otherwise than in accordance with section 137(3) of the Constitution, the Commission denied her the protection of the law contrary to section 4(b) of the Constitution.

The Court of Appeal also ordered that compensation be assessed by a judge of the High Court for breach of the claimant's rights under section 4(b) of the Constitution.

2.         The relevant constitutional provisions

2. Under section 104(1) of the Constitution, judges other than the Chief Justice are appointed by the President acting in accordance with the advice of…