Legal tensions between the Office of the Attorney General, former chief justice Sir Patterson Cheltenham and a retired High Court judge have escalated, with fresh claims and a counter-application now before the High Court.
Former justice Dr Sonia Richards, who last year lodged a constitutional claim against the Attorney General and Sir Patterson alleging she was unlawfully locked out of her office and forced from her post, has now filed amended claims in the High Court.
The court has set next Friday to hear a counterclaim by the two defendants, who are requesting that the case be thrown out. They are represented by Senior Counsel Roger Forde in association with the Solicitor General’s Office.
Through her attorney Lalu Hanuman, the retired judge’s amended claims now include a request for damages for defamation arising out of statements made to the Press by the retired chief justice that were published between 2022 and last month.
Dr Richards is alleging that the statements demeaned her in the eyes of her peers, other employees, lawyers, and or well-thinking members of the public; and that the words were done with malice because she alleged the CJ knew them to be false, and was reckless whether they were true or false.
The former judge is also claiming that the defendants breached the implied terms in her employment contract that she would not be abused, discriminated against, wrongfully refused access to her workplace, and made to work under conditions that made her ill.
She added that the former chief justice acted without reasonable and or probable cause and deprived her of her constitutionally guaranteed security of tenure when, as she alleged, he locked her out of her office.
But in the counteraction being lodged in the High Court, Forde, attorney for the defendants, is asking that the tribunal strike out the amended claim form in its entirety and dismiss those specific allegations brought against the retired Chief Justice. The defendants also want the court to order the retired judge to pay Sir Patterson’s legal costs arising out of the application to strike out, with such costs to be assessed or agreed.
Dr Richards claims she was not properly considered for an extension of her tenure beyond age 65 and was removed from office in breach of the Constitution.
The suit alleges that the defendants contravened her constitutional rights, defamed her, breached her terms of employment as a High Court judge, and caused her suffering.
Forde has outlined a number of grounds on which he has anchored the application to strike out.
One ground claims there is no reasonable basis for bringing the claim as constitutional, arguing that the affidavit evidence of the claimant does not disclose any ground for alleging that the defendants committed any breach of Sections 11(b), 11(c), 15, 16, 84(1A), 84(3) or 84(4) of the Constitution.
Forde also argues that there are no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim against the ex-CJ with regard to judicial immunity. He contends that the acts or conduct complained of were not the acts or conduct of the former CJ.
He said: “To the extent that [Sir Patterson] was acting in his capacity as Chief Justice of Barbados is immune from suit in respect of the acts complained of, which he considered to be within his jurisdiction, and which were performed in good faith in his capacity as the Chief Justice of Barbados and in the administration of the courts then there is no reasonable ground for bringing the claim.”
He added: “To the extent that some of the acts complained of were the acts of the President and/or other persons [Sir Patterson] is not responsible for the same.”
Dr Richards, who was appointed to the Bench on April 1, 2006 and retired on May 17, 2022 at age 66, is asking the court to award her exemplary and vindicatory damages, costs fit for two counsel, interest, and such further or other relief as the court deems fit, according to filings.
Apart from the award of damages, the retired judge is also asking the court for declarations that the defendants breached her constitutional rights to protection from deprivation of property without compensation, protection of the law, and protection from inhumane or degrading punishment or other treatment.
Dr Richards claimed that on April 6, 2022, the then chief justice demanded that she return her swipe card and office keys, but she refused. She also alleged that on April 12, when she turned up at the White Park Road Supreme Court Complex, she was unable to enter the building with her key or access her office with her swipe card.
(EJ)
