PRESIDENT of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), Justice Michael de La Bastide, during the hearing an appeal from Guyana in 2008, noted the seriousness of delays in the completion of cases, saying: “If such delays are not eliminated, public confidence in the justice system in Guyana will surely be eroded.”

Despite the appropriateness of the observation, however, the CCJ had no alternative but to dismiss the appeal, having found that the appellant, former policeman, Mr Vibert Gibson, had no case, as of right, within the meaning of Section 6 (d) of the Caribbean Court of Justice Act, and that the appeal lacked merit in any event.

During the course of the hearing, Justice de La Bastide observed: “Before concluding this judgment, we feel obliged to comment on the fact that this case was originally filed in July 1989.

“The High Court proceedings were not concluded until November 2004, more than 15 years after the case was filed. Undoubtedly, there must have been reasons for this but we can think of none that could justify a delay of that order.”

The facts of the case disclosed that by letter of 30 June 1989, Gibson was discharged with immediate effect from the Guyana Police Force on the grounds that his discharge was desirable in the public interest.

He brought proceedings against the Attorney General, alleging that his removal from the Force was unconstitutional, null and void, and claiming damages for loss of salary, pension, and gratuity.

Gibson further contended that he was entitled to the total compensatory package he would have earned  had he remained in the Force  until he reached the age of retirement, and that the Court  should make no allowance for the possibility of his mitigating his loss. 

In 2004, the High Court found that Gibson had indeed been unlawfully dismissed, and awarded damages equivalent to 24 months salary.

The Court of Appeal here in Guyana upheld that judgment, but allowed the appeal, to the extent of ordering the State to pay to Gibson the pension to which he was entitled, based on his 20 years’ service in the Force.   The appellant appealed to the Caribbean Court of Justice.

The CCJ, in turn, invited written submissions from Gibson’s counsel, Mr. Benjamin Gibson, and from Ms Trishala Persaud, on behalf of the respondent, the Attorney General, as to whether in all the circumstances, the appellant had an appeal, as of right, within the meaning of Section 6 (d) of the Caribbean Court of Justice Act, 2004.

Besides contending that Gibson had no appeal as of right within the meaning of Section 6 (d) of the Caribbean Court of Justice Act, and that the appeal lacked merit in any event, the CCJ held that in order to found a right of appeal, Gibson had to establish that the proceedings were concerned with the exercise  of the jurisdiction   conferred upon the High Court relating  to redress for the contravention of the provisions of the Constitution for the protection of fundamental rights, in accordance  with Section 6 (d) . 

In their view, the instant action was one for unlawful dismissal and not one seeking constitutional redress for the infringement of a fundamental right.  The claim was not presented as a breach of a fundamental right, the judges contended, nor could it seriously be suggested that the appellant had a fundamental right to salary and pension as if he had continued in his post until his attainment of the relevant retirement age.  

Delivering the judgment of the CCJ, President de la Bastide said: “The appellant  was discharged from the Police Force by letter dated June 30, 1989, with immediate effect on the ground that his discharge was desirable in the public interest.   He filed suit the following month against the Attorney General, alleging that his removal from the Force was unconstitutional, null and void, and claiming damages for loss of salary, pension and gratuity.

“The appellant appeared to take the view  that he was entitled to the total compensatory package  he would have earned had he remained until he reached the age of retirement, and that further,  the Court should  make no allowance  for the possibility of his mitigating his loss.   After a trial, the Court held that the appellant had been unlawfully dismissed.  The appellant was awarded damages equivalent to 24 months salary.   The appellant appealed.

“The Court of Appeal (comprised of Justices Claudette Singh, and Justices of Appeal Kissoon and Chang) upheld the judgment of the trial Court, but allowed the appeal, to the extent of ordering the State to pay the appellant the pension to which he was entitled, based on his 20 years’ service in the Force.  The appellant was given leave to appeal, as of right, to this Court.”

Continuing with his findings, Justice de la Bastide said: “The facts of this case and the circumstances in which an appeal  as of right was filed resemble very closely those in the case of Yasseen  v A.G. of Guyana [2008] CCJ 3 (AJ), 72 WIR 317, in which this Court  delivered  a written judgment  on March 26, 2008.   Adopting the same course we followed in Yasseen’s case, we required counsel for the appellant to provide us with written submissions  on the issue whether the appellant was invited to appeal as of right. Those submissions were filed, and having read them, we can see no reason to alter the view we took in Yasseen’s  case, namely, that there is no right of appeal, and that the appeal, in any event, lacks merit and should be dismissed.”

Said he in closing: “We consider that the identical reasoning applies to this case; accordingly, we strike out this appeal, and for the same reason we declined to order costs in Yasseen’s case, namely that the respondent played no part in the striking out of the appeal, we would make no order as to costs here.”

Other CCJ judges who presided over the matter were Justices Adrian Saunders of St Vincent and the Grenadines, and Desiree Bernard of Guyana. Justice de la Bastide hails from Trinidad and Tobago.