(Trinidad and Tobago) The appellant, the Islands’ chief magistrate appealed against a decision to proceed with disciplinary allegations against him. He had refused to give evidence in a prosecution of the then Chief Justice, though his own statement was the origin of the prosecution. He said that the decision to begin the disciplinary proceedings was ultra vires because the procedure should have given him opportunity to comment before the decision was made.
Held: The role of the investigating officer was not limited to the alleged offences passed to him. The appellant cannot have been unaware of the allegations he faced, and had been given opportunity to provide an explanation, and despite the leaking of the allegations a fair trial remained possible. The Board had not acted ultra vires and the appeal failed.
Judges:
Lord Phillips, Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Sir Jonathan Parker
Citations:
[2010] UKPC 6
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See also – Sharma v Brown-Antoine, Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions and others PC 30-Nov-2006
(Trinidad and Tobago) Complaint was made as to a decision to begin professional discliplinary proceedings against a senior member of the judiciary.
Held: Although a decision to prosecute was in principle susceptible to judicial review on the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Constitutional
Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.401633