Previous 19 / 43 Next

35. There is also a letter dated June 26 2015 (disclosed on February 28th 2019) from the CJ to the HDC. That letter8 also speaks for itself. For the same reason it is also set out in full (all emphasis added) June 26th, 2015. Ms. Jearlean John, Managing Director, Housing Development Corporation, #44-46 South Quay, PORT-OF-SPAIN. Dear Ms. John, From time to time needy employees or clients of the court seek my assistance in obtaining housing without understanding that the Judiciary, as a separate arm of the Government, has no role or authority in directing Executive Agencies in matters of this nature. Nevertheless, I am always happy to assist worthy applicants in any way that I can if I discern that there is a genuine and justifiable need. Accordingly, and without prejudice, I am forwarding the enclosed list of persons who have applied for HDC housing and would be grateful for any appropriate assistance that you can provide. Thank you for your kind indulgence in this matter. Sincerely, Ivor Archie, O.R.T.T. Chief Justice 36. The reasonable fair minded and informed observer would therefore have been aware that the CJ made recommendations in respect of housing for “needy and deserving persons”. Such observer, if fair minded, would have 8 Record of Appeal - page 496 19

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

In re Representation of People Act and the September 7, 2015 Elections.

Judgment

Question Presented: Whether the potential for Chief Justice bias is sufficient to overturn the dismissal of a petition challenging election results.

Alleged Acts: Six petitions were filed to challenge the October 7, 2015 election results. The petitions were dismissed by the High Court and the Court of Appeal again dismissed after the petitioners appealed. In 2017, articles were published relating to the Chief Justice and the Housing Development Corporation. The petitioners allege that the Chief Justice was biased at the time of the original dismissal based on the Housing Development Corporation (HDC) recommendations. Further, the petitioner allege that the Chief Justice was required to disclose the allegation to the election petition parties.

Procedural history: The allegation involving the HDC were referred to the Prime Minister for potential action, but the Prime Minister declined any suggestion to initiate proceedings under his purview.

Summary: The legal test for determining bias is as follows: “whether a fair minded and informed observer apprised of all of the relevant facts being neither unduly suspicious, nor complacent would conclude in circumstances that there was a real possibility of bias.” The allegation against the Chief Justice include claims that he sought favors from the government, including Whatsapp messages to the Prime Minister after the election. The court stated that there was not sufficient evidence for a fair-minded and informed observer to find a logical connection between the messages and the election outcomes. In particular, the court stated that both political parties could claim bias, which suggests that the two are not sufficiently linked to a particular outcome.

Conclusion: The court determined that there was no real basis for the conclusion that Chief Justice was bias and the appeal was dismissed.

Legal Issue(s)

Civil Procedure
Electoral Integrity
Judicial Independence

Region: Americas

Country: Trinidad and Tobago

Language of Decision

English

Court: Supreme Court

Election Type: Review of law

Date of decision: Feb 6, 2020

Geolocation

Latitude: 10.669365883149688

Longitude: -61.46749247356304

: Geolocation

Primary Documents

CvA_16_s293DD06feb2020.pdf
English
Download View

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

In re Representation of People Act and the September 7, 2015 Elections.

Primary Documents

Notifications