Maroc - NEWSDAY.CO.TT - A la Une - 26/12/2025 15:28

Judiciary releases information on outstanding judgments

THE JUDICIARY has released detailed information on outstanding judgments and decisions of High Court and Court of Appeal judicial officers in response to a freedom of information request from a transparency advocate in November. On November 25, attorneys for Anthony Dopson, a civic activist and former Oilfields Workers’ Trade Union branch secretary, demanded the release of detailed records on long-standing court judgments. The FOIA request, sent by Freedom Law Chambers, was addressed to Chief Justice Ronnie Boodoosingh. The firm, led by Anand Ramlogan, SC, argued that delays eroded trust in the Judiciary and violated the constitutional promise of timely justice. The request gave the Chief Justice until December 25 to issue a decision. A letter accompanying the request noted a national concern about judicial backlogs, questioning whether judicial resources are being efficiently managed. “Given that the Judiciary is constitutionally mandated to uphold the rule of law and ensure access to justice, prolonged delays undermine its constitutional role and impair public confidence in this critical institution. These matters are plainly of national concern. “They affect citizens’ constitutional right of access to justice, the efficiency of a core branch of the State, and the credibility of the judicial system,” attorney Aasha Ramlal wrote. The FOIA request sought a list of all matters in which High Court judges, masters, registrars and Court of Appeal judges have reserved judgments for more than six months; all matters where decisions on applications or costs have remained outstanding beyond three months; all statements of costs filed but unassessed after one year, with the assigned registrar identified; all pending appeals where written reasons remain outstanding more than six months after the notice of appeal; the number of decisions of each High Court judge that have been reversed by the Court of Appeal over the past five years. CJ COMMITTED TO TRANSPARENCY In its response, the Judiciary’s disclosure covered judges of the Court of Appeal, the High Court, masters, and registrars, providing data as of November 25. It also provided a list of reserved judgments outstanding for over six months; outstanding decisions on costs; statements of costs filed but not yet assessed; outstanding reasons for appeals over six months; and appeals filed where High Court decisions were overturned by the Court of Appeal in the past five years. In the statement, the Office of the Chief Justice emphasised the Judiciary’s commitment to public accountability and transparency. It said the information was compiled primarily from judicial officers’ own reporting, with registrars reviewing hundreds of Court of Appeal orders dating back to 2020. It also said the information was being simultaneously disclosed to the media “in acknowledgement of its duties of accountability to the public and transparency in its operations.” The statement added, “The information we have provided is based largely on the reporting of the judicial officers themselves. The Judiciary understands the importance of maintaining accurate records and tracking the progress of cases in which decisions are pending, and we will continue to update our records as new monitoring systems are implemented.” The Judiciary noted that while there are no statutory timelines for the delivery of judgments in Trinidad and Tobago, six months is generally considered a reasonable benchmark. Oral judgments are often delivered within this period, although decisions from higher courts, including the Privy Council, can take longer. Highlighting the principles guiding judicial conduct, the statement cited the Statements of Principles and Guidelines for Judicial Conduct, which instruct judges to dispose of court business “efficiently, fairly, and with reasonable promptness.” It noted that factors such as case complexity, workload, or health issues can affect timelines. “The Judiciary recognises that one of its core functions is to ensure that judgments and decisions are provided ‘with reasonable promptness’ and that adequate reasons are given in the event of an appeal. “Most judicial officers monitor their performance to ensure compliance with their obligations. “Most judicial officers also work diligently, striving to hear and dispose of cases fairly and within a reasonable time. At times, however, judicial officers, like everyone else, undergo health and other challenges which impact their efficiency.” To support the timely delivery of judgments, the Judiciary outlined ongoing initiatives to facilitate general compliance. These include: continued training on oral and written judgments; monitoring judicial performance by officers and the Office of the Chief Justice; mentoring and advising newer judicial officers; strengthening systems for tracking judicial performance; public reporting on judicial activity; and encouraging timely submissions from attorneys to facilitate prompt decisions. Judiciary apologises The statement acknowledged that some court users have experienced delays and offered a sincere apology, committing to delivering outstanding judgments as quickly as possible. “We acknowledge that some court users have had to wait a long time for judgments and decisions to be given. “For this, the Judiciary sincerely apologises. We commit to doing all that is humanly possible to ensure that these outstanding judgments will be delivered in the shortest possible time. We will also work diligently to deliver reserved judgments and decisions within a reasonable time as we move forward. “We ask for the understanding of the public as we strive to fulfil our mandate within the existing constraints of resources.” The Judiciary said the disclosure reflected its dedication to ensuring timely justice. “It is also a recognition of our duty to be accountable to the public to enhance trust and confidence in the judicial system.” In the letter, Dopson’s attorneys noted, “The Judiciary is one of the three constitutional branches of government. Its operations must be transparent to ensure public confidence. Delayed judgments, particularly those delayed beyond the accepted six-month standard, affect the credibility of the institution. [caption id="attachment_1198687" align="alignnone" width="1024"] The Hall of Justice, Port of Spain. - File photo[/caption] “Disclosure will allow the public to understand the extent of systemic delays and whether corrective measures are needed. Judicial officers, while constitutionally independent, are still accountable to the public for the performance of their duties. Timely judgment delivery is a core judicial responsibility. Transparency in this regard facilitates informed discourse on judicial efficiency, resource allocation, and administrative reform,” the letter said. It also stated that Dopson intended to publish any information received “so that members of the public, attorneys and litigants can identify whether cases have been omitted and press for accuracy. “This way, judges can be assisted by litigants and attorneys whose matters were inadvertently omitted to ensure that they have a complete list of outstanding judgments,” the letter said. What the records show The Judiciary disclosed detailed records showing which judges and masters have cleared long-outstanding decisions and which matters remain pending across the High Court, Family and Children Division and Court of Appeal. In the High Court’s civil division, several judicial officers reported having no decisions reserved for more than six months. Those in full compliance include Justices Carol Gobin, Frank Seepersad and Margaret Mohammed, along with Masters Sherlanne Pierre, Coreen Findley, Rishma Ramrattan, Wrenerson Lochan and Antoinette Alleyne. Records also show a list of outstanding civil matters before other judges, involving civil trials, interim applications and constitutional cases. Some date back several years, with reasons cited including delayed submissions, complex legal issues, transcript preparation and intervening circumstances such as the death of court staff or litigants. Delivery dates for many of these rulings are scheduled between December and mid-2026. Judges with outstanding civil matters include Justices Joan Charles, Devindra Rampersad, Robin Mohammed, Nadia Kangaloo, Marcia Ayers-Caesar, Kevin Ramcharan, Avason Quinlan-Williams, Jacqueline Wilson, Karen Reid, Christopher Sieuchand, Westmin James and Marissa Robertson. In some cases, judgments have been drafted and await formal delivery, while in others oral decisions were given but written reasons remain pending. In the criminal division, 13 judges reported no outstanding decisions or judgments, including Justices Devan Rampersad, Hayden St. Clair-Douglas, Kathy Ann Waterman Latchoo, Lisa Ramsumair-Hinds, Gail Gonzales, Nalini Singh, George Busby, Mauriceia Joseph, Gillian Scotland, Sherene Murray-Bailey and Tricia Hudlin-Cooper, as well as acting judges Maria Busby-Earle-Caddle and Trevor Jones. Several masters in the criminal division also reported full compliance. A small number of matters involving reasons pending appeal remain under the supervision of Master Sarah De Silva. Most cases cleared in Family & Children Division The Judiciary’s update on the Family and Children Division shows that a significant number of judges and masters have cleared all matters reserved for more than six months before Nov. 25, 2025. Family Court judges with no outstanding matters include Justices Sharon Gibson, Halcyon Yorke-Young and Linda Khan. Numerous family court masters and children court judges and masters also reported no pending decisions. Outstanding matters were identified for a limited number of judges. Justice Joseph Tam, a temporary judge, reported several reserved decisions, some dating back years. Justice Betsy Ann Lambert-Peterson reported 19 outstanding decisions, along with pending costs rulings and appeal reasons, some originating from the Civil Division. Other judges reported one or two pending matters, most with delivery dates set between December 2025 and January 2026. The Judiciary also released an updated schedule of reserved judgments before the Court of Appeal that have been outstanding for six months or more, listing more than 60 matters across civil, criminal, family, magisterial and procedural appeals. Some civil appeals date back to 2013, with several high-profile cases involving the Attorney General, state agencies, media houses, trade unions and former public officials. While a number of judgments were delivered in December 2025 or are scheduled for early 2026, dozens remain pending, including criminal and AJIPA appeals reserved between mid-2024 and April 2025. Data cataloguing hundreds of High Court and tribunal decisions that were set aside, varied or remitted by the Court of Appeal between 2012 and 2025, were provided. The cases span constitutional, commercial, labour, immigration, family and public law matters, with many remitted for rehearing or reconsideration.   The post Judiciary releases information on outstanding judgments appeared first on Trinidad and Tobago Newsday.