For the last 4 months, we've been telling you about the dispute between Ian Haylock, a veteran member of the Belize Customs and Excise Department with 33 years of public service experience, and the Briceno Administration.
Haylock is 53-years-old, and he is less than 2 years away from retirement as a public servant. That's part of the reason why he took issue when Prime Minister Briceno advised the Governor-General to appoint his colleague, Estelle Leslie, as the new Comptroller of Customs. She is the first female Comptroller of Belize, but Haylock thinks that he was unfairly passed over for the promotion. And so, he filed a lawsuit for judicial review against the Government to challenge the appointment of his new Head of Department.
We've told you about the extended and lengthy arguments that his attorneys, former Prime Minister Dean Barrow, and former Senate President Darrell Bradley, made on his behalf. They have tried to convince Justice Westmin James that the appointment should be overturned on the grounds he had a legitimate expectation to be consulted before the new Comptroller was selected, and that he was unfairly passed over in bad faith and that the new government injured his right to fair career advancement.
The government, which was represented by a legal team headed by Senior Counsel Godfrey Smith, has strenuously argued that these legal rights he is claiming don't exist as he is asserting them. And, after 3 weeks of careful consideration, the judge has agreed with the Government's position.
In a teleconference hearing held this afternoon, Justice James delivered an oral version of his written decision in which he provided details on why he is agreeing with the Government that Haylock's lawsuit should not succeed. The judge concluded his ruling by dismissing the claim, and shortly after hearing, we got an opportunity to speak via teleconference with Godfrey Smith about this win for the government.
Smith told us that while Haylock may have had a justifiable hope of being promoted, which was disappointed, that hope did not reach the threshold of becoming a legal right that could be protected. Here's how he explained why:
Godfrey Smith, SC - Attorney for GOB
"Upon the resignation - or the retirement, sorry - of the outgoing Comptroller of Customs, there were 3 deputies in line who would have a desire to be promoted, or an expectation, to be promoted. The government took a decision and appointed Miss Estelle Leslie, and the claimant Mr. Haylock was not appointed. Mr. Haylock, I should say, is clearly a highly accomplished public officer. He was the 3 deputy Comptroller, and may even - may - have been senior to the others. That was his argument. Naturally, he had a desire, after giving an entire lifetime to the public service, to the Customs, and after all his academic accomplishments, which were indeed stellar, naturally, he had a desire to be promoted to the post of Comptroller. His desire was disappointed; he was not chosen. He felt that he had a legally enforceable right to have been consulted, not only in relation to who should be appointed as the next comptroller, also in relation to the government's decision to remove from the Public Services Commission the power to decide who would be the comptroller and to vest that in the Governor-General, acting on the advice of Prime Minister, after consultation with the Commission. He felt he had a legally enforceable right to be consulted. We contended that he didn't and the judge accepted that argument. To have been successful, he would have had to show [that] he had what in law is called legitimate expectation. You see, you can have hope, a desire, and an expectation that you are next. But, it doesn't rise to be a legal right. For it to have arisen to be a legal right, he would have had to show that he was promised it, that some policy document indicated that he would be next in line, or that there was some practice that he would have been consulted. And as the judge found, he was unable to show any of these 3."
Smith tells us that he doesn't expect Haylock and his legal team to appeal. But, Haylock has a right, and so, he has 21 days to approach the Court of Appeal.
