Things Legal Forum

About the LLB (Q79) => Constitutional and Public Law => Topic started by: Mohan on August 04, 2019, 09:55:56 AM

Title: Taking on a PhD
Post by: Mohan on August 04, 2019, 09:55:56 AM
In Trinidadian parlance, my mouth has no cover. Meaning that I am no respecter of persons merely by the qualifications or positions they hold.

Recently, I took on a PhD lawyer (Canadian/Trinidadian) for his poor understanding of public law. Hence this post in this category.

The background:

First, the Chief Justice (CJ) in Trinidad and Tobago, one Ivor Archie, has two friends who are known and convicted fraudsters who incited people to part with money to get government housing, using their friendship with the CJ as an inducement on the grounds that the CJ would intervene on the applicants' behalf, based upon recommendations from his two friends (the fraudsters). So said, so done. The CJ has admitted publicly that he 'did recommend a few needy clients' , coincidently the same names of people who paid the fraudsters, and they were leapfrogged (several hundred times over) over others in the waiting list. A prima facie case of misconduct in office.

Second, CJ influenced a sitting judge to hire a convicted criminal in order to provide him with a job. Again, a case of possible misconduct.

Third, the CJ as head of the Judicial and Legal Services Commission (JLSC) was responsible (not solely) for promoting the Chief Magistrate to a puisne judge of the High Court. Turns out the new judge had 53 outstanding matters as Chief Magistrate and a whole mess occurred as all of them had to be restarted de novo by the new Chief Magistrate. Some of the matters went back 10 or more years, and the new start was onerous on those charged, timewise as well as financially (obviously, their lawyers would be charging for the new extra hours they had to put in). He later called the former chief magistrate (and new judge) and allegedly forced her to sign a resignation letter – that matter is now before the courts as the former chief magistrate claimed to be pressured into resigning.

Fourth, the CJ was accused of trying to influence all judges to change their personal security arrangements to use the company that one of the convicted fraudsters was involved in – in other words, trying to influence judges to favour the company his friend had an interest in.

Fifth, the CJ allegedly had correspondence with the Prime Minister on these matters, making the Prime Minister complicit in his affairs. Therefore, the Prime Minister's decision not to refer the CJ to the president under section 137 is no surprise – things might be revealed that are better remaining hidden and not seeing the light of day.

All of this is in the public domain. Google is your friend.

The Law Association of Trinidad and Tobago (LATT) challenged the Prime Minister under section 137 of the constitution to refer the Chief Justice to the President, for a tribunal to be set up to investigate the CJ. This is the only avenue to remove the Chief Justice, or indeed, investigate him. The chief justice challenged the Law Association all the way to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) and lost – the JCPC ruled that the LATT had all rights to investigate the circumstances the CJ found himself in although they did not have any authority to discipline or make recommendations for disciplining him. Indeed, anyone could investigate the CJ. []

The issue at hand:

Along comes Dr Emir Crowne [] to plainly state that 2 QCs and the LATT are wong in asking for the CJ to be investigated. No legal reasoning provided of course. See here:

 After being soundly slapped across the head by yours truly, he now tries a fudge:

In both of these links you can see my comments at the bottom of the page.

But Dr Crowne's agenda becomes obvious when you read a previous contribution:

Clearly, Dr Crowne's covert agenda is to promote himself, whether to attract clients or build his own ego.
Title: Re: Taking on a PhD
Post by: Captain Walker on August 04, 2019, 11:19:26 AM
I was partly involved with Mohan in all this. We were both totally flabbergasted how a qualified lawyer could apply the law - or rather be oblivious to the law - in this instance. This is fair opinion based on the facts, so I'm not shaking in fear that Dr Crowne comes after me with a defamation action.

For anybody else reading this, it doesn't matter if this is a case in Trinidad & Tobago - where you might have no business at all. The important learning points are:
1. How a barrister (Crowne) applies or misapplies the law to the facts.
2. Errors in cognitive processes.
3. Lack of self-awareness about contradictory statements.
[Hence by undying interests in psychology and human nature]

The essence of the goings on were as follows:

Yes - good on Mohan. But that's not the point. This is of course bigger than Mohan. The importance is also what is done with legal knowledge and skills after toiling for 3 years (plus).