A High Court judge has withdrawn from the constitutional lawsuit brought by retired judge Dr Sonia Richards against the State and a former chief justice, citing a conflict of interest.
Justice Shona Griffith, who had been presiding over the case and ruled in July that it should go to trial, recused herself after ordering Dr Richards to re-amend her statement of claim and serve it on Roger Forde, senior counsel for the two defendants.
Justice Griffith indicated that the conflict arose because she had sat on the bench at the same time as Dr Richards, who alleges defamation, negligence and breaches of her constitutional rights.
A revamped claim, filed on Wednesday in the High Court, will now be heard by Justice Patrick H Wells on October 29.
In her 76-page judgment in July, Justice Griffith struck out nearly half of the claims in the constitutional lawsuit, ruling that several allegations disclosed no reasonable grounds for filing them.
The claims dismissed against the Attorney General, the first defendant, and Sir Patterson Cheltenham, the second defendant and then head of the judiciary, alleged breaches of Dr Richards’ right to security of the person; her right to protection against inhuman and degrading treatment; her right to be properly considered for an extension of tenure; and her right not to be removed from office other than in accordance with sections 84(3) and 84(4) of the Constitution.
But Justice Griffith directed that Dr Richards was free to proceed with her claim that her right to security of tenure was breached, though not in relation to any allegation that she was removed from office.
The retired justice was also allowed to pursue her claim that the Attorney General and former chief justice contravened her right to the protection of the law, but the court ordered that the manner in which that breach is alleged to have arisen must first be pleaded.
In the redrafted document, Dr Richards is claiming a slew of damages, including defamation by the words and deeds of the defendants and damages for breach of the terms of employment as a judge of the High Court.
She is also asking the court for damages for the alleged negligence of the defendants in breach of the duty of care owed to her, not to abuse her in the execution of her duties as a High Court judge, or expose her to undue stress, illness and ridicule.
The claimant is also seeking stigma damages, exemplary damages, and constitutional and/or vindicatory damages.
She also wants the court to declare that the defendants breached her constitutional right to security of tenure and contravened her rights to the process prescribed in the Constitution for removal from office.
In her July ruling, Justice Griffith also paved the way for the retired justice to proceed with a defamation lawsuit. There are three separate defamation claims, which must be pleaded separately.
The former judge was also allowed to be heard on the remaining two claims: that her terms and conditions of employment were violated, and that there was a breach of the duty of care in her employment.
Forde told Barbados TODAY on Friday that his first priority at this time was whether the complainant and attorney had properly complied with the judge’s order. “The judge told them to do something in a particular way…whether they have done it in that particular way.”
Dr Richards is being represented by attorney-at-law Lalu Hanuman.
(EJ)
