THE Judiciary of Trinidad and Tobago has slammed attorney Gerald Ramdeen for stating that its electronic mechanism called CourtMail has failed.
In a release on Saturday, the Judiciary described as “patently untrue” statements made by Ramdeen.
Read full release:
The Judiciary denounces as patently untrue the statements made by Mr Gerald Ramdeen as reported in the Trinidad and Tobago Guardian and the Newsday of December 6, 2019.
Both media houses carried articles that referred to a pre-action protocol letter, which was sent by attorney Gerald Ramdeen to the Registrar of the Supreme Court on December 5, 2019.
In his letter, Mr Ramdeen indicated, inter-alia, that the CourtMail electronic mechanism, which has been introduced by the Judiciary, is a failure.
Mr Ramdeen referred to instances where orders issued by Honourable Judges during the period November to December 2019 have not been conveyed to him in good time.
The time between the hearings and the despatch to Mr Ramdeen has nothing to do with the functioning or the effectiveness of the CourtMail system.
CourtMail is an electronic mailing facility that is used to sign and despatch communication from the Court to Attorneys and receive same from attorneys.
It cannot despatch something which has not yet been drafted and finalised.
The drafting of court orders by the Judiciary is a different process which sometimes requires more complex procedures and review. Only when it is deemed accurate and is perfected can it be dispatched by CourtMail.
Mr Ramdeen has clearly misunderstood the role and function of CourtMail which has been functioning most effectively.
It is unfortunate that the system that is already bringing relief to attorneys could be so simply described as a failure due to the lack of understanding of how it functions and what it is.
The impression created that the Judiciary is also not responding to Mr Ramdeen’s correspondence is also unfortunate as an e-mail written by Mr Ramdeen on November 15, 2019 was responded to by the Registrar on the same day and received with an acknowledgement from Mr Ramdeen on November 15, 2019, thanking the Registrar for her prompt response.
It is therefore a falsehood to say or suggest that the Registrar has not responded to Mr Ramdeen’s correspondence.
In fact the opposite is true.
Furthermore, the Judiciary does not believe that it has to respond to every missive from Attorneys, particularly when such communication is based on inaccuracies, misinterpretations, or meant to mislead.
CourtMail has not been a failure in any way, but has been very successful.
The Judiciary is continuing to train its staff so that court orders are drafted more speedily and so that they adhere to timelines for preparation of all documents, and is very proud of the standards achieved thus far by its staff.
The Judiciary stands ready to yet again explain its electronic systems to any Attorney, including Mr Ramdeen, who requires same, to obviate similar misconceptions in future.
The Judiciary also as usual stands ready to explain its systems to any media house which is interested in understanding same.