In the Supreme Court, a major decision has been delivered about a sitting justice. Justice Courtney Abel handed down a decision last Friday on two claims: claim eighty three of 2013 filed by Dean Boyce and claim eighty five of 2013 filed by British Caribbean Bank Limited and Lord Michael Ashcroft. The claims challenged the legality of a decision by the Judicial and Legal Services Commission to not refer to the Belize Advisory Council a complaint, lodged in July 2012. The claimants sought the removal from the Court of Appeal, of Justice Samuel Awich, for misbehavior and/or inability to perform the functions of the office.
In the Supreme Court, a major decision has been delivered about a sitting justice. Justice Courtney Abel handed down a decision last Friday on two claims: claim eighty three of 2013 filed by Dean Boyce and claim eighty five of 2013 filed by British Caribbean Bank Limited and Lord Michael Ashcroft. The claims challenged the legality of a decision by the Judicial and Legal Services Commission to not refer to the Belize Advisory Council a complaint, lodged in July 2012. The claimants sought the removal from the Court of Appeal, of Justice Samuel Awich, for misbehavior and/or inability to perform the functions of the office.
Magali Marin Young
“The complaint was a compliant in relation to his elevation by the Prime Minister to the position of a Court of Appeal Judge. And the complaint alleged that Mister Awich’s behavior—while he was in the Supreme Court—was behavior that could be described…in terms of his delay in delivery of judgment and in his conduct of cases involving these two parties constituted misbehavior and showed inability for him to sit as a Supreme Court judge and even more so as a Court of Appeal judge. That complaint unfortunately was not referred by the Judicial and Legal Services Commission to the Belize Advisory Council. The Judicial and Legal Services Commission with the Bar Association in the minority decided not to refer it because it found that the behavior of Mister Justice Awich, while he was a Supreme Court judge was not in fact relevant to the removal process in relation to his position as a Court of Appeal judge and they found that the complaint was premature. Well the court today, found that the Judicial and Legal Services Commission erred; that in fact, Mister Justice Awich’s behavior, before he was elevated to the Court of Appeal, his behavior while he was a Supreme Court judge, is very much relevant to any removal process pursuant to section 102 of the Belize Constitution. And it also found that the behavior complained of was serious enough to warrant the Judicial and Legal Services Commission referring the matter to the Belize Advisory Council.”
Justice Abel found “that the evidence put before the JLSC was capable of amounting to and therefore could have amounted to misbehavior. Likewise the question of inability to discharge the functions of the office related to the office of the Court of Appeal.” It is good news for the Claimants, says Attorney Magali Marin Young, because it lends credibility to the concerns of Justice Awich sitting on its cases. According to Young, the Judicial and Legal Services Commission is now duty-bound to refer the matter to the Belize Advisory Council.
Magali Marin Young, Attorney
“The case today is…one of the grounds of appeal before the Caribbean Court of Justice concerns Mister Justice Awich….while he was newly appointed to the Court of Appeal sitting on the very appeal concerning the nationalization of B.T.L. And these same parties, British Caribbean Bank and the Employees Trust, as you know their properties were expropriated under the nationalizations that took place in 2011. With Mister Justice Awich sitting on the appeal, the appellants applied to the Court of Appeal to have Mister Justice Awich recuse himself because during the appeal, this complaint was a live issue—it had already been made to the Judicial and Legal Services Commission—and the appellants felt in that regard, they would not…that Mister Awich sitting on the appeal knowing that the appellants had filed this complaint against him could result in a decision that was unfavorable to them because of the appearance of bias on the part of Mister Justice Awich. So as you are well aware, the Court of Appeal went against our clients and one of the grounds of appeal concerns Mister Justice Awich sitting on the appeal, while the complaint to the Judicial and Legal Services Commission was made.”