Anand Beharrylal
08-09-2008, 06:57 PM
I had hoped to have seen some cogent and official response from either: the Honourable Chief Justice Ivor Archie, the Law Association or the Judicial and Legal Service Commission, on the recent remarks by the Honourable Mr Justice Herbert Volney. To my disappointment there has been nothing of consequence said from any official source.
To recap Mr Justice Volney indicated that to be appointed to the Court of Appeal (as reported in the press): “You must never express an independent viewpoint even though it may be the correct one to propound... You must attend all the invitations sent to you by officialdom in order to rub shoulders or appear to do so,”; “You must be from the Christian right and must be seen to be involved whether as Chancellor, pastor, singer of all the psalms in the incantations of religious fervour.”; “you must know your benediction and must be known for your piety.”; and you “must not only follow the obvious, but in their script must appear to be pleasing to all and offensive to none.”
I agree with Senator Dana Seetahal SC that these remarks from a High Court judge demand an official response, whether to confirm or deny the serious indictment by Mr Justice Volney. If what he has said is even half true it demonstrates that unfair and improper criteria are being applied in the judicial appointments process. This does not bode well for the judiciary, which is still reeling from the fiasco surrounding the previous Chief Justice which raised serious questions over the independence of the judiciary in TT.
To ensure the independence of the judiciary it must be composed of a cross-section of the community it serves so that no one section of society can dominate or control the judiciary. The requirement that it be reflective of the community it serves enhances the concept of judicial independence. This is because its’ primary function is to resolve disputes which may include disputes between individuals or groups that have religious affiliations. Thus, in TT there ought to be judges who are Christian, Hindu and Muslim. If Mr Justice Volney is right and the Christian right dominates the appointment system then there is not, and never will be, a judiciary that reflects TT society.
It is even worse if his criticisms are true that you can only be appointed if you do not have “independent” views and must follow a “script”. This most damning criticism strikes at the heart of judicial independence. It also means that there are judges who are not passing judgment on the merits of the case, but potentially on the basis of favouritism, towing an unknown line and/or simply to curry favour for promotion. Unless steps are taken to correct this tremendous damage to the already fragile reputation of the judiciary, further weight will be added to the suspicion within the Commonwealth that TT is just another banana republic.
Anand Beharrylal
London, UK
To recap Mr Justice Volney indicated that to be appointed to the Court of Appeal (as reported in the press): “You must never express an independent viewpoint even though it may be the correct one to propound... You must attend all the invitations sent to you by officialdom in order to rub shoulders or appear to do so,”; “You must be from the Christian right and must be seen to be involved whether as Chancellor, pastor, singer of all the psalms in the incantations of religious fervour.”; “you must know your benediction and must be known for your piety.”; and you “must not only follow the obvious, but in their script must appear to be pleasing to all and offensive to none.”
I agree with Senator Dana Seetahal SC that these remarks from a High Court judge demand an official response, whether to confirm or deny the serious indictment by Mr Justice Volney. If what he has said is even half true it demonstrates that unfair and improper criteria are being applied in the judicial appointments process. This does not bode well for the judiciary, which is still reeling from the fiasco surrounding the previous Chief Justice which raised serious questions over the independence of the judiciary in TT.
To ensure the independence of the judiciary it must be composed of a cross-section of the community it serves so that no one section of society can dominate or control the judiciary. The requirement that it be reflective of the community it serves enhances the concept of judicial independence. This is because its’ primary function is to resolve disputes which may include disputes between individuals or groups that have religious affiliations. Thus, in TT there ought to be judges who are Christian, Hindu and Muslim. If Mr Justice Volney is right and the Christian right dominates the appointment system then there is not, and never will be, a judiciary that reflects TT society.
It is even worse if his criticisms are true that you can only be appointed if you do not have “independent” views and must follow a “script”. This most damning criticism strikes at the heart of judicial independence. It also means that there are judges who are not passing judgment on the merits of the case, but potentially on the basis of favouritism, towing an unknown line and/or simply to curry favour for promotion. Unless steps are taken to correct this tremendous damage to the already fragile reputation of the judiciary, further weight will be added to the suspicion within the Commonwealth that TT is just another banana republic.
Anand Beharrylal
London, UK