The professional fate of former chief magistrate Marcia Ayers-Caesar hinges on a pending ruling by the Privy Council, which will determine whether her resignation as a High Court judge in 2017 was coerced or voluntarily undertaken with full understanding of the Judicial and Legal Services Commission (JLSC)’s position.
Lords Reed, Hodge and Stephens, Lady Rose and Lady Simler reserved their ruling at the end of a two-day hearing of the JLSC’s appeal on December 3.
Ayers-Caesar has to wait until the apex court rules to know her fate.
In their October 12, 2023, ruling, the Appeal Court’s three-judge panel, comprising Justices of Appeal Allan Mendonca, Nolan Bereaux, and Alice Yorke-Soo Hon, delivered unanimous judgments, declaring the JLSC’s actions “illegal” and its decision to “coerce” Ayers-Caesar into resigning unconstitutional.
They declared that Ayers-Caesar continued to hold the office of puisne judge, ordered her purported resignation letter expunged from the records of the President and that Ayers-Caesar should be compensated for the breach of her rights.
>
The enforcement of the Court of Appeal’s orders in her favour has been stayed pending the outcome of the appeal.
Ayers-Caesar has consistently maintained her resignation took place under duress. She testified that the JLSC, chaired by Chief Justice Ivor Archie, threatened that the President would revoke her appointment if she did not resign.
She alleged she was presented with a pre-prepared resignation letter during a meeting with the Chief Justice.
The JLSC’s actions were tied to public outrage over 53 cases Ayers-Caesar left incomplete as a magistrate before her High Court appointment. The commission purportedly framed her resignation as a solution, assuring she could return to her magistracy role.
Ayers-Caesar was appointed a High Court judge on April 12, 2017, but resigned 15 days later amid public backlash over her appointment.
In his rebuttal submissions on December 3, Ian Benjamin, SC, representing the JLSC, urged the law lords to provide clarity on appropriate procedures for addressing similar issues in the future.
Benjamin acknowledged the challenges the JLSC faced in 2017 when Ayers-Caesar’s appointment as a High Court judge sparked public controversy.
While defending the JLSC’s actions, he asked the Privy Council to offer guidance on processes other than invoking section 137 of the Constitution, which governs the removal of judges.
“The commission would welcome from the board what the possibilities are...What should be the process,” Benjamin told the law lords. “As much as we do not want it to happen again…”
>
Benjamin also asked for reconsideration of the precedent set in cases like Rees and Crane, which address the constitutional framework for judicial appointments and removals. He suggested the Privy Council should outline the options available to the JLSC when faced with such circumstances.
In submissions on December 2, Benjamin urged the Privy Council to overturn the appellate court’s ruling.
He insisted the Chief Justice was responsible, transparent and constitutionally compliant in his conversations with Ayers-Caesar in the days leading up to her resignation, which, he maintained,” were not designed to threaten or coerce her, as the Appeal Court wrongly found.”
He emphasised the decision taken by the JLSC and by extension, the Chief Justice was to cause minimum disruption to the administration of justice, while treating Ayers-Caesar with fairness and compassion. This, he said, was consistent with the constitution.
He said the JLSC had to consider the seriousness of the situation and brought it to her attention through the Chief Justice.
He also said the Chief Justice had a duty to act responsibly, and his actions were not an illegality.
Peter Knox, KC, who leads the team for Ayers-Caesar, along with Senior Counsel Ramesh Lawrence-Maharaj and Ronnie Bissessar, said the Appeal Court’s ruling was “unchallengeable,” especially since, he said, the JLSC had no authority to seek the resignation of a judge.
In its unanimous ruling, the Court of Appeal held that Ayers-Caesar’s resignation was unlawfully procured through threats and coercion, violating constitutional processes outlined in section 137, which governs judicial disciplinary action.
Newsday understands Ayers-Caesar and her husband, Rickie Caesar, were in London for the hearing of the appeal.
>
Benjamin apologised for the Chief Justice's not being able to attend in person because of professional commitments.
