The Court of Appeal has denied a community activist leave to appeal a case at the Privy Council regarding the validity of the Judicial and Legal Services Committee.

LeYoni Junos, of the Civil Justice Advocacy Group, argued that the JLSC was an “unconstitutional body” that lacked authority to investigate or hear complaints against local judges, and called for a judicial review.

The case was rejected by Puisne Judge Juan Wolffe last year, with the decision upheld by the Court of Appeal this year.

Ms Junos sought to have the case appealed before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, arguing that the appeal court had mistakenly found the Governor’s decision to refer her complaint to the JLSC was not unlawful.

In a decision handed down last week, the court declined leave to appeal, stating that the case boiled down to a question of the proper procedure for complaints against the judiciary.

The judgment, written by Sir Anthony Smellie, said: “The reality is that, not having been provided with a statutory or constitutional procedure, the governors have been well advised to establish one.

“This was done, in largely unexceptionable terms in the form of the protocol, by Governor George Ferguson, then acting upon the advice and draft provided by very eminently qualified persons, including the then incumbent Chief Justice and President of the Court of Appeal.

“This case has brought to light the need for and manner of its clarification to ensure complete compliance, not only with the responsibilities of the Governor but also with the important precepts of judicial independence and security of tenure.

“There is no basis for the applicant’s expressed ongoing scepticism about the efficacy and transparency of the process to be followed as advised in the judgment.”

The case came as a result of a complaint made by the CJAG to John Rankin, then the Governor, in February 2019, regarding the behaviour of the Chief Justice.

Later that month, Government House told the group that the complaint had to be resubmitted to the JLSC in accordance with its “complaints protocol”.

The group, in an open letter sent to Rena Lalgie, Mr Rankin’s successor, said it had filed the civil proceedings against the Governor on May 17, 2019, but that it “was met with absolute silence from the judiciary”.

The CJAG subsequently filed for a judicial review of the Governor’s decision to refer the matter, arguing in the Supreme Court that the JLSC was an unconstitutional body with no legal authority.

Puisne Judge Juan Wolffe refused the application in a written decision last year, finding that while the JLSC was not enshrined in the Bermuda Constitution, the Governor was entitled to create processes and procedures for how judicial complaints were handled.

Ms Junos then took the matter to the Court of Appeal, which struck it down this year, stating that while the Governor’s decision to redirect the complaint to the JLSC may be considered “unhelpful”, it was not unlawful.

She subsequently sought leave to appeal the decision to the Privy Council on the basis that the Court of Appeal had erred in deciding that the redirection was not unlawful.

Ms Junos argued that there was no lawful authority to delegate the consideration of such a serious complaint to anyone, and the failure to consider the nature of the complaint bordered on a dereliction of constitutional duty.

While she said there was a significant public interest in the case, the Court of Appeal responded the questions raised by the appeal were “very well known and settled”.

“In this case, there was no question of a lack of understanding of the principles or of the remedies, by this court or the court below,” the judgment stated.

“At issue has been whether, on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case, the principles should have been applied differently so as to have granted the applicant the declaratory and mandatory remedies for which she contends.

“In other words, the case concerned the application of settled principles in the area of Bermuda public and administrative law and their application to the facts of the case.”

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding court cases. As we are legally liable for any libellous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers