[2025] UKPC 4
Privy Council Appeal No 0057 of 2024
JUDGMENT
Jaiwantie Ramdass (Respondent)
v
Minister of Finance and another (Appellants) (Trinidad and Tobago)
From the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago
before
Lord Hodge
Lord Sales
Lord Stephens
Lady Rose
Lady Simler
JUDGMENT GIVEN ON
28 January 2025
Heard on 7 November 2024
Douglas L Mendes SC
Michael S de la Bastide SC
Jerome Rajcoomar
(Instructed by Charles Russell Speechlys LLP (London))
Respondent
Anand Ramlogan SC
Kate Temple-Mabe
Mohammud Jaamae Hafeez-Baig
Aasha Ramlal
(Instructed by Freedom Law Chambers (San Fernando))
1. Introduction
2. The factual background
"(a) What circumstances led to the understatement of revenue in the public accounts for the financial year 2023 and what should be done to avoid a recurrence of same;
(b) The efficacy of the new Electronic Cheque Clearing system introduced by the Central Bank of Trinidad and Tobago in 2023;
(c) The efforts made by the officials at the MoF and its various Divisions to correct the understatement of revenue, and to advise the Auditor General of the understatement and provide her with an explanation, clarification and further information on same;
(e) What are the facts in relation to the allegations and statements made by the Auditor General in her report on the public accounts with specific reference to the understatement of revenue in the public accounts for the financial year 2023;
(f) Any other related matters; and
(g) Findings and recommendations."
3. The respondent's ground for judicial review based on bias
"105. The Minister of Finance is charged with the ministerial responsibility for the Ministry of Finance. The investigation therefore concerns alleged errors and maladministration that occurred under and during his watch as Minister of Finance. He has publicly defended the action and conduct of the officials in his Ministry and has disingenuously sought to shift blame to the Auditor General.
106. The investigation has the potential to cause serious reputational harm and damage to the Applicant and the Office of the Auditor General. Given the vehemence with which the Minister of Finance has attacked the Applicant, both in Parliament and publicly, and the scathing, one-sided comments that he has made about her conduct, it is unreasonable and unfair for him to select and recommend the investigators which the cabinet approved, draft the terms of reference and have the investigators report to him. He is conflicted and there is a real risk of bias.
107. The investigation was initiated by a member of the Executive, exercising a public function, who was required to exercise that public function with impartiality, independently, and without pursuing any personal interest. The fact that the Minister bore personal ministerial responsibility for the errors of his department, and the fact that he had so vehemently criticised the Applicant and made clear statements indicating his view about her conduct, both indicate that he had a personal interest in the outcome of the investigation which he initiated. This offends against his duty to act fairly, and for the public good with impartiality and is therefore unlawful.
108. The investigation offends against an established principle of procedural fairness, namely that no one may be a judge in his own cause. The Minister of Finance has made statements privately to the Auditor General, in Parliament and publicly, which pre-judge the matters under investigation. ..."
4. The respondent's ground for judicial review based on a breach of the constitutional protections available to her
5. The test to be applied by the Board in deciding this appeal
"In circumstances where leave to apply for judicial review has been granted, then ordinarily the preferred course is to proceed to a hearing on the merits, unless there is some clean knockout blow. On an appeal a very powerful - even an overwhelming - case presented on behalf of an appellant ordinarily will not suffice unless it amounts to a clean knockout blow."
6. The Law Association case
"it had no constitutional status and its report would have no binding effect upon anyone (per Mendonça CJ (Ag) at para 72). The adverse consequences of construing the Constitution in the way suggested [on behalf of the Chief Justice] far outweighed any beneficial consequences: it was accepted that the media could investigate the Chief Justice's conduct, and that he was not immune from criminal prosecution. If the argument on behalf of the Chief Justice was accepted only certain citizens would be prohibited from inquiry; this would impinge upon their fundamental rights to freedom of thought and expression. Public confidence in the judiciary would be strengthened if the allegations were found to be baseless, and if they were not, then it would be right for the section 137 procedure to be invoked; and if there is no investigation, the allegations do not die or disappear - on the contrary, 'they may grow louder in volume' (per Mendonça CJ (Ag) at para 80)."
7. The leave stage decisions of the courts below
"was not performing an adjudicative function in which he was acting as a sort of Judge. The Minister was not determining the Applicant's rights and liabilities nor was the Minister making findings of fact in doing so and even if he made such preliminary determinations, it was not binding on the investigators. On the contrary, he was performing his functions of management and application of the Executive power. The Minister was performing a mainly political role which involved his authority, and his duty, to choose the best course of action, from the standpoint of the public interest." (para 58)
8. Was the Court of Appeal plainly wrong and/or is there a knockout blow in relation to either or both grounds?
9. Conclusion