Last month, we told you how Justice Westmin James had granted Ian Haylock permission to bring his judicial review claim to challenge the Briceno Administration's appointment of his current Customs boss, Estelle Leslie.
Viewers are aware that several months ago, Prime Minister John Briceno advised the Governor-General to appoint Leslie to the post of Comptroller. Haylock has raised strong objections before the Supreme Court as to why he was unfairly passed over for the promotion to Comptroller when Leslie was appointed. He asserts that he had a legitimate expectation of fair career advancement.
Today, Justice James presided over a 4-hour virtual hearing in which Haylock's attorneys were allowed to exhaustively argue his case as to why he thinks that he shouldn't have been passed over.
His attorney, Dean Barrow, submitted to the court that the current government had a responsibility to consult with him and that the decision which was taken was poisoned by bad faith.
Barrow told the court that according to the evidence, just before Estelle Leslie's appointment, the previous comptroller of customs, Colin Griffith, wrote to the Financial Secretary. He informed the Fin Sec that he was leaving office and that he would hand over leadership of Customs to Haylock. From the claimant's perspective, there was a legitimate expectation that he would assume the office as the most senior deputy comptroller.
In his written evidence to the court, Haylock said that the FinSec called him into a meeting and informed him that the executive was not promoting him and that they had selected someone else for the post. In Barrow's opinion, that meeting did not constitute consultation.
Part of the dispute over the appointment of Estelle Leslie is that the post of Comptroller of Customs was re-designated as an important element of the country's national security apparatus. The government's justification was they wanted to make Customs a national security department, and that the head of a national security department needs to be appointed by the Prime Minister. Barrow submitted that this re-designation was an excuse from the Briceno administration to explain after the fact that the Prime Minister passed Haylock over for the post.
Haylock's other attorney, Darrel Bradley, also submitted that he had a legally enforceable right to equal protection that was violated by the Prime Minister.
For the defense, Senior Counsel Godfrey Smith presented arguments on behalf of the Government of Belize.
Smith said that what the claimant is asking the court to do has no precedent in law. According to Smith, Haylock had no legitimate expectation to be appointed to the post, and neither did he have a legitimate expectation to be consulted. From Smith's perspective, Haylock's only legitimate expectation was to be considered for the post.
He told the court that what happened was not a disappointment of legitimate expectation, but rather a disappointment of hope, which the law has no remedy for.
Smith submitted that even if the meeting with the Fin Sec is not ruled as inadequate consultation, Haylock made his full case for his appointment to the post in a letter of objection, which was exhaustive, detailed, and comprehensive. He added that this letter went to Prime Minister Briceno.
Smith also countered the claimant's bad faith argument as hearsay evidence. He asserted that the FinSec could have simply been offering his opinion or his interpretation of a group of circumstances. According to Smith, the Fin Sec did not purport to speak to the Prime Minister, and he did not speak to the Prime Minister.
According to Smith, even if the Government made the re-designation of the Comptroller post as a part of the National Security apparatus after the fact, the justification is reasonable and logical, and that there is nothing irrational about the decision.
Smith also told the court that contrary to the Claimant's assertion, he had no legal right to be consulted, and to recognize such a right is to embark on judicial adventurism.
Senior Counsel E. Andrew Marshalleck represented the current Comptroller, Estelle Leslie, as an interested party in this case. He submitted that a duty to consult only exists when the law expressly mandates it. He told the court that no such requirement exists for a consultation with Haylock.
Marshalleck also told the court that the only justification being offered on behalf of the claimant is some vague notion of fairness, which is not enough. He added that seniority is only a consideration for the appointment, nothing more. Marshalleck said that Haylock cannot assert or prove that he was the best person for the job, and that the subsequent decision to appoint Estelle Leslie was irrational.
Of important note is that Haylock's legal team has dropped their argument that the Government failed to consult the Public Service Commission before appointing Estelle Leslie. We understand that shortly before today's hearing, the government consulted the Public Service Commission and that they had no objection. The attorneys defending against this lawsuit think that Haylock's case has weakened somewhat since the law only mandates that the Commission be consulted for such an appointment.
Justice James has reserved judgment, to be delivered on the afternoon of April 16th.
