Delete End G The Permanent Secretary sent a letter to Mr. Robinson on April 25, 2002 directing him to proceed on vacation leave with effect from May 1, 2002 until further orders. The Chief Personnel Officer advised Mr. Robinson on March 6, 2003 that, based on a report received from the Solicitor General, the PSC had advised the Governor-General that steps should be taken to retire him. He was later advised that his retirement was effective January 19, 2004. Mr. Robinson expressed concern then that he was being retired before his case was decided by the court. Mr. Justice Jones granted a declaration that the consideration of the Solicitor General's report by the PSC and the subsequent advice tendered by the PSC to the Governor-General were ultra vires, null and void. A declaration was also granted that the decision taken by the then Governor-General to retire Mr. Robinson was ultra vires, null and void. Mr. Robinson lost his legal battle in the Court of Appeal this year against the PSC's decision to revert him to his substantive post and has taken the case to the United Kingdom Privy Council. barbara. gayle@gleanerjm.com source: http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20070814/lead/lead1.html Tutorial Questions: a) Why did the court rule that the steps taken by the Solicitor General were inconsistent with the principles of natural justice? (10 marks) b) What is a better approach that the Solicitor General could have adopted with respect to Mr. Robinson's grievance? (10 marks)tome End Overruled! Supreme Court says Public Service Commission (PSC) breached natural justice rules - Government lawyer awarded damages for loss of salary, allowances published: Tuesday | August 14, 2007 Barbara Gayle, Staff Reporter The Supreme Court has ruled that the Public Service Commission (PSC) breached its regulations and the rules of natural justice, when it recommended to the Governor-General that government lawyer Lackston Robinson should be prematurely retired from the Public Service. Mr. Justice Roy Jones, in handing down his decision, said the case against the PSC was "unanswerable" and granted orders quashing the recommendation. The judge ordered that damages for loss of salary and allowances to Mr. Robinson be assessed on a date to be fixed by the Registrar of the Supreme Court. It was also the court's ruling that Carol Palmer, Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Justice, misconstrued the provisions of Staff Order 5.23 as giving her authority to send Mr. Robinson on vacation leave or for the reason that "the best interests of the department and the Public Service demanded that the applicant be sent on leave while the lawsuit was pending". "This decision is a striking example of an abuse of power, is ultra vires to the Staff Orders and void," the judge said as he granted the order quashing her decision. Legal battle The legal battle between Mr. Robinson and the PSC arose from a decision taken by the Solicitor General, Michael Hylton, shortly after he took office in 2001. Mr. Hylton had said in October 2001, that he wanted other senior lawyers to act in the vacancy of Deputy Solicitor General before a determination was made as to who was most suitable for the job. Mr. Robinson, whose substantive post was Senior Assistant Attorney General, was then acting as Deputy Solicitor General. Mr. Robinson, who was acting in the post for a year, said an assessment should be made as to his suitability for the post before he was reverted. On October 19, 2001, the Solicitor General wrote to the PSC recommending that Mr. Robinson be reverted to his substantive post. Mr. Robinson, who is being represented by Mr. R.N.A. Henriques, Q.C., took the issue to the Supreme Court on April 9, 2002