STATEMENT BY SENATOR FRED MITCHELL

ON THE COURT APPEAL DECISION IN

RALPH MUNROE VS. COMPTROLLER OF CUSTOMS

9 OCTOBER 2000

The Court of Appeal has affirmed the decision of Davis J in the matter of Ralph Munroe against the Comptroller of Customs. The decision was affirmed by a two to one majority. A written decision from the Court has not been handed down but the majority decisions and the dissent are expected shortly. However, the Court has issued its order affirming the decision of Mr. Justice Davis.

Ralph Munroe is a Customs Officer Grade I and in 1994, he was removed from the overtime roster by the Comptroller as a result of certain actions taken by Mr. Munroe which the Comptroller labeled insubordination. Attorneys for Mr. Munroe, GWENDOLYN HOUSE filed an originating summons which was heard before Mr. Justice Davis asking for certain declarations and other reliefs. The principle relief was that the Comptroller had no power to exercise disciplinary authority. That was a matter for the Financial Secretary. Further, Mr. Munroe asked for a declaration that the Comptroller acted outside his powers when he removed Mr. Munroe from the overtime roster. The Supreme Court agreed and ordered damages to be assessed. The Court of Appeal has now affirmed that decision. There is some indication that the Crown intends to appeal the matter to the Privy Council.

The case was argued int the Supreme Court by Raynard Ribgy and in the Court of Appeal by Fred Mitchell. Sharon Rose appeared for the Crown in the Supreme Court and Milton Evans for the Crown in the Court of Appeal. The Appeal of the Crown was dismissed and the decision of Davis J affirmed on 27 September 2000.

The case is of wide importance throughout the service especially for Customs and Immigration Officers who receive over time pay for their services. The case is now authority for the fact that overtime cannot be used as a disciplinary tool. There is a duty for the Comptoller to act fairly in the distribution of overtime to Customs Officers. He cannot simply decide that as punishment overtime can be withdrawn from an officer. It ought to be done on a rational basis.

We are pleased with the result and urge the Government not to appeal but to apply the law as the Courts have now interpreted it.

This is also an appropriate time to make some observations about the state of the Courts which continue to be of concern to practitioners. As we have seen in this matter with the Comptroller of Customs, the Courts are important instruments for determining the rights of citizens. We therefore need to have courts that are adequately staffed with competent personnel and manned by judges that are fair and independent. The constitution demands nothing less.

I think that part of the constitutional process demands an open and transparent process in the appointment of Judges. This morning those of us who read our newspapers would find that another Judge has been brought in from outside The Bahamas to fill a vacancy on the Court of Appeal. That is patently wrong. Bahamians ought to be the judges on the Court of Appeal. The process of appointment for a Judge should be such that we know the antecedents of judges, some of the decisions that they have made. In particular, I am concerned about the record of judges when it comes to the human rights of individuals. The new Judge is Mustapha Ibrahim. There is nothing known about his antecedents save that which was released to the newspapers. I therefore call for an open and transparent process in the appointment of Judges and the complete Bahamianization of the Bench up to the Court of Appeal level.

We congratulate Vera Watkins on her appointment as Supreme Court Justice and wish her well. It is our hope that the Judicial and Legal Services Commission will continue this trend so that the entire Supreme Court Bench is Bahamianized.

An answer needs to be given about the whereabouts of Mr. Justice Moore who is believed to be involved in a Commission of Inquiry in Bermuda. What is his status on the Bench and is he being paid while doing that work abroad by the Bahamian Courts?

Further, practitioners continue to complain about problems with the running of the courts and its support services, including the facilities of the Registrar General.

The appointments for the year 2001 before judges have been stymied for weeks now because the Clerk of the List has not been provided with a diary for the year 2001 for those responsible.

Secondly at the Registrar General’s office, the machine for the photocopying of official documents from microfilm has been out of toner for weeks and there is no idea when the toner will be provided.

One can not also forget that the air conditioning system in the Supreme Court was out of repair for weeks during the summer and left those who used the Courts in great discomfort.

Further, the Volumes of Laws of The Bahamas must be updated and a comprehensive set of laws provided for practitioners and Judges.

This can not augre well for the running of an efficient administration of Justice.

-end-