Isaac Longsworth v Anglican Diocese of Belize
| Jurisdiction | Belize |
| Judge | Griffith. |
| Judgment Date | 23 January 2019 |
| Date | 23 January 2019 |
| Docket Number | CLAIM NO. 63 of 2018 |
| Court | Supreme Court (Belize) |
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D. 2018
(CIVIL)
The Honourable Madame Justice Griffith.
CLAIM NO. 63 of 2018
Mr. Darrell Bradley, Bradley Ellis & Co. for the Claimant; Mr. Rodwell Williams SC and Mr. Adler Waight, Barrow & Williams LLP for the 1 st Defendant; and Mr. Nigel Hawke, Solicitor General and Mrs. Samantha-Matute-Tucker for the 2 nd and 3 rd Defendants.
Judicial Review - Claim for judicial review — Opportunity to be heard — Ultra Vires — Whether decision to dismiss claimant was unlawful — Whether claimant afforded opportunity to be heard — Whether proceedings tainted by bias — Whether hearing ultra vires — Whether claimant entitled to relief
This is a claim for judicial review filed by Mr. Isaac Longsworth (‘the Claimant’), a teacher, who was dismissed from his employ as principal of the St. Barnabas’ Anglican School on the 29 th September, 2017. The route of the Claimant's dismissal was via a recommendation by the Anglican Diocese of Belize (‘the Managing Authority’) further to a disciplinary hearing of several charges levied under the Education Rules 2012 (‘the Rules’), the approval of that recommendation by the Teaching Service Commission (‘the Commission’), and ultimately the confirmation of the dismissal by the Teaching Service Appeals Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’). Subsequent to receiving notification of the Tribunal's dismissal of his appeal, the Claimant applied for judicial review of the decisions arising from all three bodies, seeking in the round, relief declaring his dismissal unlawful, an order of certiorari to quash the respective decisions, as well as an order of mandamus for his reinstatement to the position of principal of St. Barnabas’. The Claimant seeks also damages arising from the dismissal including lost salary.
The grounds of the claim for judicial review of the respective decisions are that the hearing of the Board of the Managing Authority was conducted in breach of natural justice; the proceedings were biased; and the Managing Authority's decision was ultra vires, having not been completed within the statutory period prescribed under the Education Rules for doing so. With respect to the hearing before the Commission, it was argued that the Commission also failed to discharge its statutory duty to afford the Claimant a fair hearing. The Defendants respectively contend that the Claimant was afforded an adequate opportunity of being heard but failed to avail himself of that opportunity and that the delays in the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings before the Board of the Managing Authority were due to the Claimant's own actions in failing to attend the hearing on several occasions. The 1 st Defendant also contended that the Claimant could not establish that the proceedings were tainted by bias. On the whole, it was contended on behalf of all the Defendants that the Claimant's dismissal was lawful and justified.
The following issues arise for determination:-
-
(i) Was the Claimant's dismissal unlawful by reason of any one or more of the following:-
-
(a) A failure to afford the Claimant an opportunity to be heard in making his defence to the charges against him;
-
(b) The proceedings were tainted by bias; or
-
(c) The hearing was not concluded within the statutorily prescribed period and as such was ultra vires.
-
-
(ii) If found unlawful, what relief should be afforded to the Claimant?
The Claimant indicates that he has been in the teaching profession since 1988. For the school year 2012—2013, he was employed by the Managing Authority as a teacher at the St. Ann's Anglican Primary School and thereafter was approved as principal of St. Barnabas' for the school year 2013–2014.
According to the Managing Authority's General Manager of Primary Schools Ms. Domingo (‘the General Manager/GM’), the Claimant was appointed as acting principal for the 20132014 year. The precise terms of the Claimant's appointment beyond the period 2014 were not clear from the evidence, however at the very least it is inferred that he either was renewed as acting principal or principal for the year 2014–2015. Resolution of this gap in the evidence is not material within the context of this claim. Following a complaint made by a parent against him, an internal audit of the school's accounts, and appraisals carried out of his performance, the Claimant was notified that a formal process of investigation was being commenced against him, as a precursor to disciplinary proceedings. In accordance with the Rules, the Claimant was placed on administrative leave with full pay from the 27 th August, 2015 for the course of the investigation, and upon its conclusion, the Managing Authority decided to lay charges for various violations of the Education Rules.
By letter dated the 24 th September, 2015, the Claimant was notified of the charges against him, placed on interdiction with full salary, and was advised that he would be provided with copies of the evidence for his case, as well as the details for his hearing. By letter dated 5 th October, 2015 the Applicant was notified of a disciplinary hearing for 14 th October, 2014 at 11.00am before the Board of the Managing Authority. That hearing convened, however the Claimant did not attend at 11.00am. Instead, he presented himself at 3.30pm on the basis that the attorney-at-law he had retained to serve as his agent in the hearing was unable to attend, and had sent a message to the Board to that effect, requesting that the hearing be rescheduled to 3.30pm that day. In the meantime, having received no communication from the Claimant, the Board had commenced the proceedings in his absence. Less than an hour into those proceedings, the Board received a message regarding the Claimant's request for the hearing to be rescheduled until 3.30pm that afternoon due to the unavailability of his attorney. According to the minutes of the proceedings, the Board opted to reschedule the hearing to another day instead of deferring it until the afternoon.
Upon his arrival in the afternoon, the Claimant was advised of the adjournment to the 26 th October, 2015 at 9.30am and subsequently received written notice to that effect.
On the adjourned date of 26 th October, 2015 the Claimant's attorney asserted that the Claimant had not received disclosure as was mandated by the Rules. The General Manager Ms. Domingo asserted that the disclosure had been sent via registered mail, but was not able to establish proof of such receipt. The Board therefore once again adjourned the hearing, this time for the 6 th November, 2015 in order to facilitate the delivery of the disclosure to the Claimant. It was agreed that the Claimant's attorney would receive the disclosure at an address given for that purpose. On the 6 th November, 2015, the Claimant presented himself with his attorney for the hearing, but the premises were closed and there were no members of the Board present. Later that day, the Claimant says he received notification via email that because of difficulties encountered in delivery of the disclosure to his attorney, the documents had only belatedly been delivered and as such the hearing had to be adjourned. The Claimant was informed that he would be notified of the next adjourned date of the hearing. According to the Claimant he was next notified re the hearing on the 15 th January, 2016, to the effect that the Board would be meeting to discuss his case on the 22 nd January, 2016 and he would be informed accordingly.
The Board met on the 22 nd January, 2016 in an ordinary meeting, at which time there was discussion on written submissions provided on behalf of the Claimant sometime in early December, 2015. Nothing further was communicated to the Claimant by the Board over the ensuing months, however the Claimant provided evidence of several email inquiries made to various persons, lamenting the failure to conclude his hearing. In his inquiries, the Claimant also expressed his opinion as to the lack of legal standing of the proceedings given the time that had elapsed. Subsequent to one such inquiry in May, 2016, the Claimant was notified by an email dated the 2 nd June, 2016 that the hearing would continue on the 7 th June, 2016. The Claimant alleged in his affidavit evidence that he received that notification on the 6 th June, 2016. However from an email response dated the 3 rd June, 2016, it became clear that he'd had sight of the email at least in the morning on that day.
Via email directly to the Chairman of the Board on the 7 th June, 2016, the Claimant protested the notice as being too short; that he would not have been able to contact his attorney due to such short notice; and thus indicated his intention not to attend,.
The Claimant's email of the 7 th June, 2016 appears not to have come to the attention of the Chairman of the Board, thus the hearing proceeded in his absence, and the recommendation was made for the Claimant's dismissal. In accordance with the Education Rules, the recommendation for the Claimant's dismissal was submitted to the Teaching Service Commission (on the 27 th June, 2016) and on the 3 rd November, 2016, the Commission approved the recommendation for dismissal. The Claimant appealed to the Teaching Service Appeals Tribunal which dismissed the appeal and the Claimant's dismissal was effected on 29 th September, 2017. This is the broad sequence of events giving rise to the Claimant's application for judicial review. Within the legal submissions outlined hereinafter and its discussion and analysis, the Court will make reference to specific aspects of the evidence, the contentions surrounding such evidence and its findings in...
To continue reading
Request your trial