Supreme Court awards $1 million in damages to St Elizabeth librarian

A LIBRARIAN employed in the government service who was suspended from duties in 2016 has received a Supreme Court award in damages of $1 million for a breach of his constitutional right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time.

Sheldon Roberts, who was employed at the St Elizabeth Parish Library, had brought a claim in the Supreme Court in October 2021 against the attorney general and the permanent secretary in the Ministry of Education, Youth & Information.

Justice Andrea Pettigrew-Collins granted a declaration on October 27 that his constitutional right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time in respect of disciplinary charges against him has been breached.

Roberts is currently on interdiction since July 2016.

Disciplinary action was taken against him on the account of allegations of irregularities in his handling of public funds.

A disciplinary hearing was convened but he contended that several years have passed and he has not been advised of the outcome.

He filed a claim seeking his reinstatement but was not successful.

A disciplinary hearing commenced in April 2017 and the panel reserved its decision on May 1, 2017, but Roberts said since then he has not been informed of the outcome.

He contended in the claim that the delay in making a decision after the hearing violated his constitutional right.

Roberts said his salary was reduced while on interdiction and asked the court to find that it was a constitutional breach.

Overwhelming evidence

Witnesses from the Education ministry stated that Roberts was advised of the reasons for reduction of salary and travelling allowance.

One witness deponed that the panel of enquiry had arrived at a decision that the evidence against Roberts was overwhelming and the charges against him have been proven, and recommended that his employment be terminated immediately.

However, the witness said because the attorney general’s opinion was not obtained pursuant to the Public Service Regulations, the decision of the panel was not provided to Roberts.

The witness stated that the opinions of the attorney general and the director of public prosecutions were sought and exhibited the responses from those departments.

The witness also stated that the Ministry of Finance recommended to the Ministry of Education that disciplinary proceedings against the claimant be suspended pending clear advice from the Attorney General’s Department.

The witness said the Ministry of Finance was advised that “the criminal aspect of the matter was not pursued” by the Compliance and Audit section at the Ministry of Education.

The judge found that the claim was not an abuse of the process and Roberts had made out a claim that his constitutional right to a hearing within a reasonable time was breached.

“Although the evidence established that a decision was arrived at as at the time of the trial of this claim, the decision had not been communicated to the claimant, the judge said.

It was also the judge’s finding that the claimant’s hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal was not breached as there was no evidence that the committee lacked impartiality and independence.

The judge pointed out that “the input/directive/recommendation from the Ministry of Finance effectively operated to cause the Ministry of Education not to act on the decision of the Committee of Enquiry and to refrain from communicating that decision to the claimant, thereby interfering with the final stage of the process”.

‘The order for reinstatement is refused. An order that disciplinary proceedings which commenced against the claimant be stayed is granted. An order that there be no further disciplinary proceedings against the claimant in respect to the allegations in the proceedings is refused,” the judge ruled.

The judge refused to grant declarations that the reduction in Roberts’ salary while on interdiction was unconstitutional.

He was also seeking a declaration that he was wrongfully subjected to disciplinary hearing prior to a ruling by the director of public prosecutions, but the judge refused to grant it.

Attorney-at-law Kareem Reid, instructed by attorney-at-law Janet A. Patmore, represented the claimant.

The defendants, which included the members of the panel which heard the disciplinary proceedings, were represented by attorney-at-law Karessian Gray, instructed by the Director of State Proceedings.

editorial@gleanerjm.com