MASTER of the High Court Sarah De Silva will get her full costs from the Judicial and Legal Services Commission (JLSC) for her judicial review application over the protracted delay for promotion because of a disciplinary complaint against her.
On January 16, De Silva withdrew her application because she had been sworn in as a Master of the High Court.
De Silva served as a prosecutor in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) for eight years before she was eventually appointed a magistrate in April 2018.
During the recruitment process for the position of master, a complaint was filed against her by the manager of a Tobago hotel over her conduct as a magistrate.
In late 2020, the JLSC wrote to De Silva informing her that she was successful in the recruitment process and had placed third on a merit list for promotion.
However, the JLSC warned that the final consideration of her for the position would take place after the determination of the misconduct allegation against her.
In February 2021, the JLSC preferred two disciplinary charges against De Silva.
There was a delay in the tribunal completing its work as its first chairman, retired Appeal Court judge Andre des Vignes died in January 2022. Several months later, retired magistrate Anna Ryan was appointed to chair a new disciplinary panel to consider the charges.
When the case came up for trial in September last year, High Court Judge Hayden St Clair-Douglas, who was assigned to prosecute the case, failed to produce any witnesses.
When the hearing was reconvened one month later, St Clair-Douglas indicated that the prosecution’s witnesses were uncooperative and reluctant to testify.
The complaint against De Silva was eventually discontinued on January 11 and she was appointed on Tuesday. Her promotion took effect on January 4, 2021.
At last week’s hearing, the JLSC argued against being made to pay costs since the matter had not passed the leave stage.
Its lead attorney, Russell Martineau, SC, contended that the court should order each side to bear its own costs.
De Silva’s attorney, Anand Ramlogan, SC, disagreed, pointing out the JLSC did not respond to De Silva’s pre-action protocol letter assuring her that the merit list would be extended beyond December 26 or further pending the outcome of the disciplinary complaint against her.
However, in a written ruling on the issue, Jutsice Ricky Rahim said there was the inference that the validity of the list would only be extended on De Silva’s request and it would have been a fundamental error in judgment had she simply sat back and assumed it would be having regard to the history of the extensions.
“There was the real possibility that the validity may have expired without extension which would have augured to the disadvantage of any case to be brought by the applicant and to her entitlement to promotion in keeping with that list. The result may have meant that she would be required to start the process for promotion de novo.”
He said because of the impending expiration of
