Durity v. The Attorney General, Court of Appeal - Privy Council, December 08, 2008, [2008] UKPC 59

Reporting Judge: [2008] UKPC 59

President: Durity v. The Attorney General

Linked as:

Extract

Durity v. The Attorney General, Court of Appeal - Privy Council, December 08, 2008, [2008] UKPC 59

[2008] UKPC 59

Durity v. The Attorney General (Trinidad & Tobago) [2008] UKPC 59 (08 December 2008)

Privy Council Appeal No 83 of 2007

Felix Augustus Durity Appellant

The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago Respondent

FROM

THE COURT OF APPEAL OF

TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

JUDGMENT OF THE LORDS OF THE JUDICIAL

COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL

Delivered the 8th December 2008

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Present at the hearing:-

Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers

Lord Hope of Craighead

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry

Baroness Hale of Richmond

Lord Carswell

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[Delivered by Lord Hope of Craighead]

The appellant, Mr Felix Durity, was until he took early retirement in 1997, a senior magistrate. In August 1989 he was suspended from his office by the Judicial and Legal Services Commission (``the Commission'') because it had been reported to it that he had been guilty of misconduct. Many months then elapsed before the Commission referred the matter to an investigating officer. The appellant took exception to the way the Commission had dealt with his case. His first complaint was that the charges which led to his suspension were misconceived, as the misconduct that was alleged against him related to decisions that he took in the performance of his judicial duties as a magistrate. The second is that he was treated unfairly by the Commission because there was a delay of about 33 months before the charges against him were investigated, contrary to the requirements of regulation 90 of the Public Service Commission Regulations, chap 1:01.

The issue that lies at the heart of this appeal is whether, in the events which have happened, the appellant is entitled to constitutional relief for these complaints. The appellant claims that the Commission's decision to suspend him from office and its delay in referring the matter to an investigating officer contravene...

See the full content of this document