Rees v Crane
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Court | Privy Council |
| Judgment Date | 1994 |
| Year | 1994 |
| Date | 1994 |
Trinidad and Tobago - Constitution - Judge's removal from office - Allegation of inability to perform functions of office - Chief Justice's decision that judge should not preside in court - Judicial and Legal Service Commission confirming decision - Whether decisions ultra vires - Commission representing to President that question of judge's removal ought to be investigated - Whether judge entitled to be informed of complaints and given opportunity to reply before representation made - Whether decisions of Chief Justice and commission vitiated by bias -
The respondent, a judge of the High Court of Trinidad and Tobago, held office subject to the fundamental right to the protection of the law recognised by section 4(b) of the Constitution of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago 1976F1 and he could only be removed from office for inability to perform the functions of his office, whether from infirmity of mind or body or any other cause, or for misbehaviour, in accordance with the provisions of section 137(1). After receiving complaints about the respondent the Chief Justice of Trinidad and Tobago decided not to include him on the roster of judges who were to sit in court for the following term. The Judicial and Legal Service Commission, of which the Chief Justice was ex officio a member, agreed with that decision. The respondent was eventually informed that it had been decided that he should cease to preside in court until further notice. Without notifying the respondent the commission met to consider whether to make a representation to the President under section 137(3) that the question of removing the respondent from office ought to be investigated. After the commission had requested further information the Chief Justice supplied it with statistics and records relating to the respondent's performance in court and thereafter ceased to participate in the commission's deliberations. The respondent was not told the complaints against him or given an opportunity to answer them. The commission made a representation to the President under section 137(3) that the question of removing the respondent from office for inability to perform the functions thereof due to bodily infirmity and/or misbehaviour ought to be investigated. In accordance with section 137(3) the President appointed a tribunal to inquire into the matter, report on the facts and recommend to him whether he should refer the question of removal of the respondent from office to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and pursuant to section 137(4) the President suspended the respondent from performing the functions of his office. The respondent commenced proceedings against the appellants, who were the three members of the tribunal, the Chief Justice and the other four members of the commission, and the Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago, seeking judicial review and redress for alleged infringements of his constitutional rights. Blackman J. dismissed both the application for judicial review and the constitutional motion. The Court of Appeal by a majority allowed the respondent's appeal in part and quashed the Chief Justice's decision to exclude the respondent from the roster and the commission's representation to the President, directed the tribunal not to inquire into the matter and ordered damages to be assessed, but allegations of bias against the Chief Justice and the commission were rejected.
On the appellants' appeal and the respondent's cross-appeal to the Judicial Committee: —
Held, dismissing the appeal, (1) that although the Chief Justice of Trinidad and Tobago as head of judicial administration there had power to organise the procedures and sittings of the courts, including arranging that for a temporary period a particular judge did not sit in court, a judge could only be suspended or removed from office in accordance with the procedure prescribed by section 137; that the decision of the Chief Justice to exclude the respondent from the roster, with no indication when he would be permitted to sit in court again, was not merely an administrative arrangement within the Chief Justice's competence but constituted an indefinite suspension which he had no power to impose and which could not be corrected retrospectively by the order of suspension made by the President under section 137(4); that in purporting to confirm the Chief Justice's decision or to suspend the respondent themselves the commission had also acted ultra vires, and those decisions of the Chief Justice and the commission were unlawful and had properly been quashed (post, pp. 187C, E–G, H–188D).
(2) That although in preliminary or initiating proceedings the person concerned generally had no right to be heard, particularly if he was entitled to be heard at a later stage, that was not a rigid rule; that, notwithstanding that the procedure for removing a judge from office under section 137 had three stages only the first of which was before the commission and at the two later stages the judge had a right to know of and to answer the complaints made against him, the commission had a duty to act fairly in deciding whether a complaint had prima facie sufficient basis in fact and was serious enough to warrant making a representation to the President; that, in view of the seriousness of the allegations and the suspicions both for the present and the future raised by a decision to suspend a judge which a subsequent revocation of the suspension would not necessarily dissipate and in all the circumstances, the commission had not treated the respondent fairly in failing to inform him at that stage of the allegations made against him or to give him a chance to reply to them in such a way as was appropriate, albeit not necessarily by an oral hearing; and that, accordingly, the commission had acted in breach of the principles of natural justice and had contravened the respondent's right to the protection of the law, including the right to natural justice, afforded by section 4(b) of the Constitution, and the Court of Appeal had correctly quashed the commission's decision to represent that the question of the respondent's removal from office ought to be investigated, and the consequential appointment of the tribunal, and he was entitled to damages the assessment of which would be remitted to the High Court in accordance with the order of the Court of Appeal (post, pp. 188E–G, 189D–F, 192B–C, 193G, 194B–C, 196C–D, 198D).
But (3), dismissing the cross-appeal, that the allegations of bias made by the respondent against the Chief Justice and the commission had not been established (post, pp. 197A, G–198A).
The following cases are referred to in the judgment of their Lordships:
Furnell v. Whangarei High Schools Board [
Guay v. Lafleur (
Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium (
Lewis v. Heffer [
Norwest Holst Ltd. v. Secretary of State for Trade [
Parry-Jones v. Law Society [
Reg. v. Birmingham City Council, Ex parte Ferrero Ltd. [
Reg. v. Gough [
Reg. v. Panel on Take-overs and Mergers, Ex parte Fayed [
Russell v. Duke of Norfolk [
Wiseman v. Borneman [
The following additional cases were cited in argument:
Albert and Le Compte v. Belgium (
Attorney-General v. Aleem Mohammed (
Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago v. McLeod [
Barnwell v. Attorney-General of Guyana (1989) (unreported); No. 4020,
Birss v. Secretary for Justice [
Chandler v. Judicial Council of the Tenth Circuit (
Christie v. Leachinsky [
Dixon v. Commonwealth (
Hauschildt v. Denmark (
Irvine v. Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (
Livesey v. New South Wales Bar Association (
Macrae v. Attorney-General for New South Wales (
Maharaj v. Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago (No. 2) [
Pergamon Press Ltd., In re [
Public Disclosure Commission v. Isaacs [
Queen (The) v. Randolph (
Ramshay, Ex parte (
Reg. v. Amber Valley District Council, Ex parte Jackson [
Reg. v. Army Board of the Defence Council, Ex parte Anderson [
Reg. v. Civil Service Appeal Board, Ex parte Bruce [
Reg. v. Board of Visitors of Frankland Prison, Ex parte Lewis [
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Coroner of Kingston & St Andrew and Attorney General of Jamaica v Dionne Holness
...the panel was not constituted in conformity with the mandate of relevant statute, as there is in this case, In the Trinidadian case of Rees v Crane (1994) 43 WIR 444 where judicial review was sought to impugn the decision of the Chief Justice and the Judicial Services Commission, the profe......
-
Naidike and Others v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago
...(3) presents Mr Knox with substantially greater difficulties. He seeks to support it by reference to three authorities in particular. Rees v Crane [1994] 2 AC 173 concerned a High Court judge in Trinidad and Tobago unlawfully excluded from the roster of sittings for the following term. The......
-
Auburn Court Ltd v Kingston and Saint Andrew Corporation
...mentioned above is concerned, I wish to refer to the opinion of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the Trinidadian case Rees and Others v Crane [1994]43 WIR 444 at 457 where Lord Slynn of Hadley said: "It is clear from the English and Commonwealth decisions which have been cite......
- Re Geoffrey Robertson
-
Constitutional damages, procedural due process and the Maharaj legacy : a comparative review of recent Commonwealth decisions (part 2)
...oving a judge o f th eGra nd Cou rt from offic e for inab ility as afo resaid or for m isbeha viour ou ghtto b e inve stigate d then –[1994] 2 WLR 476, [1994] 1 All ER 833, [1 994] 2 AC 173, [1994] 1 LRC 57 (PC).23[2005] UKPC 12, [2005] 2 WLR 1307, [200 5] 2 AC 513.24In Anya v Attorney Gene......
-
Bureaucratic bungling, deliberate misconduct and claims for pure economic loss in the tender process
...CA); R v Assistant Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, Ex p Howell [1986]RTR 52. Their Lordships distinguished Rees v Crane [1994] 2 AC 173 (PC) in that ‘theunlawful suspension of a High Court judge himself holding office under the Constitutionbears scant comparison with an administ......
-
Constitutional damages, procedural due process and the Maharaj legacy : a comparative review of recent Commonwealth decisions (part 1)
...(1981) 23 Journal of the IndianLaw Institute 190; Okpaluba Judicial approach to constitutional interpretation in Nigeria (1992) 343.6[1994] 2 WLR 476, [1994] 1 All ER 833, [1994] 2 AC 173, [1994] 1 LRC 57 (PC).7[2007] ZACC 20, 2008 (1) SA 566 (CC). 8Meerabux v Attorney General of Belize [20......
-
Judicial Independence as an Indispensable Feature of the Rule of Law and Democracy: Implications for the Commonwealth Caribbean
...example of the vulnerability of judges to administrative interference, despite all the protections itemized in the 37. Rees v Crane [1994] 2 AC 173 (PC T&T). Transitions in Caribbean Law constitutions. As the head of the judiciary, Chief Justices are highly inluential, in that they are in c......
