THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No CV2014-02496 BETWEEN PAMELA HUNT Claimant AND JENNIFER DANIEL PERMANENT SECRETARY IN THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION HARRILAL SEECHARAN CHIEF EDUCATION OFFICER IN THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION THE TEACHING SERVICE COMMISSION THE COUNCIL OF ELDERS OF THE SPIRITUAL SHOUTER BAPTIST FAITH A/C THE COUNCIL OF ELDERS OF THE SPIRITUAL BAPTIST FAITH OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO AND 1 st Defendant 2 nd Defendant 3 rd Defendant 4 th Defendant MS. ROSEANNE RONDON 1 st Interested Party ARCHBISHOP BARBARA GRAY-BURKE 2 nd Interested Party Page 1 of 12
THE COMMITTEE FOR THE COUNCIL OF ELDERS OF THE SPIRITUAL BAPTIST (SHOUTERS) FAITH OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO LIMITED 3 rd Interested Party Before the Honourable Mr. Justice Robin N. Mohammed Appearances: Mr. Martin G. Daly S.C. and Mr Christopher Sieuchand instructed by Mr Kendell Alexander for the Claimant Mr. Douglas L. Mendes S.C. instructed by Mr Anthony Bullock for the 3 rd Defendant Mr Avory Sinanan S.C. and Ms Donna Prowell instructed by Ms Amrita Ramsook for the 1 st and 2 nd Defendants JUDGMENT I. Background: [1] The Claimant, Pamela Hunt, filed a claim for Judicial Review against the Defendants and Interested Parties seeking several declaratory reliefs that relate to the application for her transfer and/or removal as principal of the St. Barbara s Spiritual Shouter Baptists Primary School (the School ) made on the 3 rd December, 2012 and the decision to commence a formal investigation into several allegations made against her. [2] After the 3 rd Defendant, the Teaching Service Commission (the TSC ), filed its affidavit in response, Pamela applied to withdraw several of the reliefs and in particular, discontinued her entire claim against the TSC. The Court permitted the withdrawal of the claim, however, the parties were in disagreement on the issue of costs and as such, submissions were filed and exchanged. Page 2 of 12
[3] A decision on the entitlement of costs for the Claimant s application to withdraw the claim against the TSC was delivered on the 10 th January, 2018, i.e. today s date. [4] At the date of the submissions, the Court had before it only one affidavit in response to the Judicial Review claim, being the affidavit of Veronica Creed on behalf of the TSC. Pamela did not file her supplemental affidavit until the 31 st March, 2015 and, in response, the 2 nd Interested Party, Archbishop Barbara Burke ( Mrs. Burke ) filed hers on the 8 th May, 2015. The 1 st and 2 nd Defendants then put in their affidavit of Zorisha Mohammed- Ali on the 14 th May, 2015. [5] By an application filed on the 23 rd June, 2015, the Claimant sought to strike out several of the paragraphs of the affidavits of Zorisha Mohammed-Ali on behalf of the 1 st and 2 nd Defendants and that of Mrs. Burke. Pamela s application also sought an order requiring (i) both deponents to attend Court for cross-examination on specific paragraphs of their affidavits; and (ii) specific disclosure of certain letters and documents referred to in each deponent s affidavit. Pamela then sought permission to file affidavits of herself and Archbishop Dorothy Hercules in reply to the affidavits of Mrs. Burke and Zorisha Mohammed-Ali. [6] On the 10 th January, 2018 (today s date), the Court delivered its decision on the above mentioned applications. [7] Evidential objections of the 1 st and 2 nd Defendants were filed on the 31 st July, 2015 seeking to strike out certain paragraphs of Pamela s affidavit and supplemental affidavit of the 15 th July, 2014 and the 31 st March, 2015 respectively. Further, a notice of their intention to oppose her application to cross-examine Zorisha was also filed by the two Defendants on even date. [8] The parties exchanged submissions on the 30 th November, 2015. [9] Accordingly, having considered the 1 st and 2 nd Defendants evidential objections and the Claimant s submissions in response, the Court gives its decision as hereunder stated. Page 3 of 12
II. Submissions & Analysis: Affidavit of Pamela Hunt filed on the 15 th July, 2014: Paragraph 43, line 1: I was informed by someone at the MOE that Mrs. Gray-Burke was scheduled to meet with the Chief Education Officer (the CEO ) in the MOE. [10] In its application, the 1 st and 2 nd Defendants (the Defendants ) argued that this statement was inadmissible because it did not comply with Part 31.3 of the CPR, was hearsay and/or had no probative value. [11] The Court is not persuaded to rule that this statement is inadmissible on the ground of hearsay. This is a statement made to Pamela by someone from the Ministry of Education. It has long been settled that such statements are admissible to establish not the truth of the statement, but the fact that it was made 1. [12] However, the Court does not find it sufficient for Pamela to disclose, as the source of this information, the fact that someone at the Ministry told her this. This is insufficient to meet the criteria in Part 31.3 (2) of the CPR. Further, Pamela does not proceed to discuss the outcome or importance of this meeting held on the 25 th October, 2013 and therefore the Court does not see the relevance and/or probative value of this statement. [13] Accordingly, paragraph 43, line 1 will be struck off. Paragraph 46, lines 7 11: I considered the letter received from Boynes & Co. to be a part of the committed campaign on the part of the board to have me removed as the principal of the school, which said objective they had made clear to me on several occasions. [14] The Defendants argued that these statements were noncompliant with Part 31.3 of the CPR, were opinion evidence and/or had no probative value. [15] The Court does not agree that Pamela failed to disclose the source or grounds for her belief/opinion that the above letter was part of the campaign against the board to have her removed as principal. At the time of receiving this letter, Pamela had already received a letter from Mrs. Burke, attached as exhibit PH8 to paragraph 40 of her affidavit, 1 Subramanian principle in the case of Subramanian v Public Prosecutor PC 1956 1 WLR 965 at 970. Page 4 of 12
complaining about the Rasta man painting in the school, in which it was expressly stated that Pamela would not be confirmed as principal and that a new principal would be appointed. Further, the letter referred to from Boynes & Co. was a pre-action protocol letter. Accordingly, the Court finds that Pamela was justified in expressing her belief. [16] Further, the Court finds that the statements made by Pamela have probative value as they amount to evidence in support of her relief sought against the Defendants for instructing her to vacate her office as principal and/or installing Ms Rondon as the new Acting principal. [17] Accordingly, the Defendants objection to paragraph 46, Lines 7 11 is overruled. Paragraph 57, lines 1 3: I felt intimidated and oppressed by what I considered to be the constant, baseless and unchecked attacks against me being launched by the Board and which were being actively pursued by other parties. [18] The Defendants argued that this excerpt failed to comply with Part 31.3, was inadmissible opinion evidence and/or had no probative value. [19] The grounds for Pamela s belief were clearly and sufficiently disclosed in the preceding paragraphs where she spoke of the many letters she received from the Council of Elders, Mrs. Burke and most recently from one Augustus Thomas attorney-at-law for the Board. Further, these statements by Pamela have probative value as they evidence her state of mind, which would have led her to institute legal proceedings against the Defendants. They also support her reliefs sought against the Defendants on her judicial review claim as they concern the allegations made against her that led to the disciplinary investigation. [20] Accordingly, the objection to paragraph 57, lines 1 3 is overruled. Paragraph 65, lines 4 6: with what now appeared to be the complicity of the MOE in acceding to their requests. [21] Based on similar reasoning given in the findings above, the Court finds that Pamela has sufficiently disclosed, by virtue of the preceding paragraphs and exhibited correspondence thereto, the grounds for the belief expressed in this statement. The Court Page 5 of 12
therefore disagrees that this statement is inadmissible opinion evidence. Further, the probative value of this statements is that it evidences and/or supports Pamela s decision to seek reliefs against the Defendants as employees of the said MOE. [22] Accordingly, the objection to paragraph 65, lines 4 6 is overruled. Paragraph 73, lines 3 5: I expected that they would speak to Mrs Gray-Burke and have her issue a commitment to me not to interfere with the discharge of my duties. To my shock and dismay... [23] The Court does not agree that Pamela failed to sufficiently disclose the grounds of her belief that the SS II Suepaul and Zorisha would have informed Mrs. Burke not to interfere with the discharge of Pamela s duties. [24] In this paragraph, Pamela describes how she expected to resume her duties as principal when the two School Supervisors escorted her to the School s compound that morning. She therefore expected that, when confronted by Mrs. Burke, the supervisors would have instructed Mrs. Burke to allow her onto the compound. The grounds for this belief is contained at paragraph 70 of Pamela s affidavit, where she stated that SS II Suepaul instructed her not to return to the District office the following morning but rather, to report for duty at the School. This suggests that Pamela was of the belief that she would be resuming her position as principal the following day. [25] Notwithstanding the above, the Court does not find much probative value in this statement. Pamela has not sought any reliefs or claims against the Defendants for misleading her or providing false information. [26] Accordingly, paragraph 73, lines 3 5 would be struck off. Paragraph 76: It appeared to me that the MOE was deliberately and purposefully facilitating Mrs Gray-Burke s desires to have me dismissed as the principal of the school. I was deliberately denied access to and custody of my personal property with no lawful cause, I was denied the opportunity to discharge my duties pursuant to my contract of employment, I was denied access to my school s compound for that purpose and my servants and/or agents of the Page 6 of 12
ministry, quite apart from taking any action to protect my interests, facilitated and in fact encouraged this action. [27] The Court finds that based on the preceding paragraphs, in particular, paragraphs 73 75, Pamela provided sufficient grounds for her belief that the Ministry of Education was facilitating Mrs. Burke s desires to have her removed as principal. Specifically, the evidence given in those paragraphs that (i) the School Supervisors instructed her to remove her personal belongings (ii) the same supervisors later prevented her from doing same, and (iii) the supervisors then proceeded to install Ms Rondon as the new principal, is, in this Court s opinion, sufficient grounds to justify Pamela s belief that the Ministry was acting on the basis of Mrs. Burke s wishes. [28] Further, this evidence has probative value as it is directly relevant to the reliefs sought against the Defendants, in particular Pamela s challenge to their decision to instruct her to vacate her office as principal and install Ms Rondon as Acting principal. [29] Accordingly, the objection to paragraph 76 is overruled. Paragraph 83, lines 3 5: both symptoms which I suspected to be as a result of the recent events described above. [30] The Court finds that Pamela has provided sufficient grounds for her belief that the symptoms of poor sleep and emotional trauma were as a result of the events described. At paragraph 82 she stated that she felt severely oppressed and entertained resignation but only through the support of her friends etc. she found the strength to remain resolute and stay the course. At all times in her affidavit, Pamela described herself as being shocked and distressed by the accusations and actions taken against her. [31] Accordingly, the objection to paragraph 83, lines 3 5 is overruled. Paragraph 89, line 1: Despite SSIII Mohammed-Ali s protestations [32] The source and/or grounds for Pamela s statement that SSIII Mohammed-Ali s protested against her desire to take sick leave and attend to her doctor is given in the preceding paragraph 87, where Pamela gave evidence that the said Mohammed-Ali informed her that she would not be allowed to take sick leave as Pamela was on disciplinary action. Page 7 of 12
Further, the Court finds that this statement has probative value because it supports her relief sought against the Defendants that they denied Pamela the opportunity to take sick leave 2. [33] The objection to paragraph 89, line 1 is therefore overruled. Paragraph 101, line 1: to my absolute surprise He appeared to be very upset [34] In the first statement, Pamela was expressing her surprise at the fact that SSII Sharma asked her to account for her days of absence from the 26 th May, 2014 from the District Office. The grounds for the belief and/or the basis for this opinion is contained both at paragraphs 97, where Pamela gave evidence that SSIII Mohammed-Ali instructed her to go home, as well as later on in the same paragraph 101. Additionally, Pamela was having an in person conversation with SSII Sharma and therefore is competent to give evidence on his emotional state at that time. [35] However, as no reliefs were sought against SSII Sharma nor is he a deponent in this matter, these statements have no probative value and accordingly, will be struck off. Paragraph 104, lines 4 12 & 19-20: it became more apparent to me that there was a strong possibility that the MOE was intent on having me transferred without my calls had fallen on deaf ears. yet they have consistently acceded to the baseless requests of the Board to have me subjected to unfair investigations [36] The Court finds that the grounds for this belief, that the Ministry was intent on having her transferred, has been sufficiently disclosed by Pamela. [37] In the same paragraph, Pamela referenced a memorandum from Jennifer Daniel, which showed that despite the investigator s finding that no action be taken against Pamela, the said Ms Daniel still asked that consideration be given to her transfer due to the impasse existing between Pamela and the Board. [38] However, the Court does not find any evidence of any calls and/or letters sent by Pamela to the Ministry requesting an investigation into the practices of the Council of Elders in 2 Relief sought at (a) on page 7 of the Claim Form. Page 8 of 12
relation to the School s funding and management. Accordingly, Pamela has not disclosed the grounds for her belief that such calls were falling on deaf ears. [39] Accordingly, the words and in respect of whom I made several calls to the MOE for an investigation into their practices It was now patently clear to me that my calls had fallen on deaf ears will be struck off. [40] Further, considering that, at this point, no determination had been made with respect to either the outcome of the disciplinary investigation under Regulation 90 or the application to have Pamela transferred, there has not yet been any basis for Pamela to describe the requests of the Board subjecting her to investigations to be baseless. [41] Accordingly, the word baseless will be struck off. The remainder of this paragraph will be allowed. Paragraph 106, Line 1: I also considered it to be grossly unfair and an act of bad faith [42] The Court finds that Pamela has disclosed the grounds for making these statements against the TSC, particularly, at paragraph 86, which referred to the TSC s letter dated the 14 th February, 2014 annexed as exhibit PH21, where the TSC stated that no allegation of misconduct had been made against Pamela. [43] Further, the Court does find that this statement has probative value considering that one of the reliefs sought against the TSC challenges their decision to institute disciplinary proceedings against Pamela in the absence of any allegations of misconduct or indiscipline 3. [44] Accordingly, the objection to paragraph 106, line 1 is overruled. Paragraph 107 in its entirety: [45] The Court agrees that Pamela makes several statements in this paragraph which amount to conclusions to which only this Court is qualified and authorised to give. Given the fact that the TSC had not, at that point, yet made its determination on the investigation nor the application for Pamela s removal, the Court does not find Pamela is entitled to say that 3 Relief sought at (d) at page 4 of the Claim Form. Page 9 of 12
she is satisfied/convinced that the TSC and the MOE have done the acts she lists in the paragraph. [46] Accordingly, the part of paragraph 107 that reads I am now satisfied that the MOE and the TSC, far from seeking and/or taking steps... to the end of the paragraph will be struck off. The Supplemental affidavit of Pamela Hunt filed on the 31 st March, 2015: Paragraph 2, line 3: aggressive manner and instructed me. [47] Pamela gave evidence that she spoke with SSII Sharma directly on the phone and therefore, the Court finds she is entitled to comment on the tone of voice and/or disposition of SSII Sharma which she experienced. However, there are no reliefs sought against SSII Sharma and therefore, his manner of speaking is irrelevant and has no probative value to the judicial review claim. [48] Accordingly, the court will strike off the words aggressive manner only from paragraph 2. Paragraph 10: everything after the first sentence. [49] The Court agrees that there is no probative value in these statements concerning the emotional distress and crying experienced by Pamela when told that she had to report to the School again. There is no relief sought which challenges any decision that required Pamela to report to School. To the contrary, Pamela has maintained at all times that her place of work was always the School and not the District office. [50] Accordingly paragraph 10 from the words I was shocked by this. I felt oppressed to the end of the paragraph will be struck off. Paragraph 12, line 3: who was installed as Acting principal in my stead in April 2014. [51] This objection is overruled. Pamela had already given evidence at paragraph 75 of her first affidavit of the 15 th July, 2014 that SSIII Mohammed-Ali installed Ms Rondon as Acting principal. This was, in any event, confirmed by Zorisha in her affidavit of the 14 th May, 2015 at paragraph 13.12. This is therefore not opinion but fact, which Pamela is Page 10 of 12
competent to give. Further, it has probative value as it is directly relevant to the reliefs sought again the Defendant. [52] Accordingly, the objection to paragraph 12, line 3 is overruled. Paragraph 21, lines 1-6: the entirety of this paragraph save for the last 2 sentences. [53] The Court finds that the highlighted excerpts of this paragraph, which speak of Pamela s request made to SSIII Mohammed-Ali for school supplies and Zorisha s lack of response, are relevant to the relief sought against the Defendants stated at (x) of the Claim Form at page 8. Further, these statements are evidenced by an exhibit PH52, which contains Pamela s letter requesting school supplies and therefore, this excerpt is in compliance with Part 31.3 of the CPR. [54] Accordingly, this objection is also overruled. III. Disposition: [55] Accordingly, having considered the evidential objections of the 1 st and 2 nd Defendants and the submissions in response by the Claimant, the Court makes the following orders: a. The following paragraphs of the affidavit of Pamela Hunt filed on the 15 th July, 2014 will be struck off: i. Paragraph 43, line 1; ii. Paragraph 73, lines 3 5; iii. Paragraph 101, line 1; iv. Paragraph 104, (i) from the words and in respect of which had fallen on deaf ears. (ii) The word baseless in the last sentence; v. Paragraph 107 from the words I am now satisfied that the MOE to the end of the paragraph. Page 11 of 12
b. The following paragraphs of the supplemental affidavit of Pamela Hunt filed on the 31 st March, 2015 will be struck off: i. Paragraph 2, line 3, the words aggressive manner ; ii. Paragraph 10, from the words I was shocked by this. I felt oppressed to the end of the paragraph; Dated this 10 th day of January, 2018 Robin N. Mohammed Judge Page 12 of 12