Judge Priya Levers

In order to provide the public with ease of access to the historical record of the Judicial Tribunal appointed by H.E. the Governor Stuart Jack to inquire into allegations of misbehaviour against Grand Court Judge Priya Levers, Cayman Net News will be publishing the daily transcripts of the Tribunal proceedings in their entirety.

Day 4 of the Tribunal continues as Stanley Brodie QC, Counsel for Justice Levers, conducts his cross examination of Yasmin Ebanks.

Monday, 11th May 2009
- - - - - - - -
CAYMAN TRIBUNAL RE: SECTION 493
OF THE CONSTITUTION
AND
LEVERS J
- - - - - - - -
Before The Tribunal:
Sir Andrew Leggatt (Chairman)
Sir Philip Otton
Sir David Simmons
- - - - - - - -
MR TIMOTHY OTTY QC (instructed by Messrs Clifford Chance LLP) appeared as Counsel to the Tribunal.
MR STANLEY BRODIE QC (instructed by Messrs Stuarts Walker Hersant) appeared on behalf of Madam Justice Levers.
- - - - - - - -
PROCEEDINGS
DAY FOUR

THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Brodie.

Cross-examination by MR BRODIE

MR BRODIE: Is it Miss or Mrs Ebanks?
A. Mrs Ebanks, sir.

Q. Have you been in the Tribunal yesterday and today?
A. No. On Friday I was partially here.

Q. Were you here on Saturday?
A. No.

Q. Were you here this morning?
A. Just before lunch I was here.

Q. Just before lunch?
A. Yes.

Q. So you have not heard the evidence of Mrs Webb being given?
A. No, sir, I have not.

Q. Did I hear you correctly when I thought you said in your last answer that, once the Leticia Barton letter appeared in Cayman Net News, that confirmed your suspicions that Madam Justice Levers had something to do with the damaging letters that had been published?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. So until it was actually published in the newspaper, you had no more than a suspicion - is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Well, in your witness statement you say before the letter was published Mrs Webb telephoned you - if you can just look back at the statement, “There was going to be a certain letter published in the newspaper along the lines of the other damaging letters concerning the judiciary which were appearing in the paper at that time. She told me there would be a letter published and would be signed by one Barton”.
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you have any reason to doubt the truth of what Mrs Webb was telling you when she told you that?
A. I did not doubt her at all.

Q. I am sorry?
A. I did not doubt her at all.

Q. So that your suspicions, presumably, were already confirmed by what Mrs Webb told you.
A. Yes, sir.

Q. So you did not need to wait for the letter to be published in the press for your suspicions to be confirmed, did you?
A. Can you repeat that question?

Q. You did not need to wait for the Barton letter to be published in the press for your suspicions to be confirmed, did you, if your evidence is right?
A. In a way I would - I have always formed that impression.

Q. Sorry.
A. I have always formed that impression that the content of those letters is words that Madam Justice Levers would use in my presence as well as in others’ presence, sir.

Q. I do not think you have understood my question. Given that Betsy Webb had already told you that there was going to be a damaging letter published - right.
A. Yes, sir.

Q. I think you have agreed that that should already have confirmed your suspicions that Madam Justice Levers was responsible.
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you agree with that?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. So, when the letter was ultimately published, it would have come as no surprise to you.
A. Yes, it did.

Q. Why?
A. Because, actually, we have seen that somebody has some evidence.

Q. But, if you had already been told that such a letter was going to be published, that was what you would have expected, was it not?
A. Well, yes.

Q. I just want to now take you to look at the evidence of Betsy Webb. Would you go to divider 44 in the witness bundle? Would you go, please, to paragraph 28? Have you seen this statement before?
A. No, sir.

Q. This is what Mrs Webb has told the Tribunal, “Justice Levers then got up from her desk and went to the ladies’ room. On her way out of the office, she asked me to call someone for her on the telephone. I called the person but I cannot remember precisely who it was she asked me to call. I think it was Mr Quin or Mr McMillan. Whilst making the call, I noticed the piece of paper that she had handed to me to scan on her desk a few minutes earlier.” Did she tell you about that?
A. Yes, sir, she did.

Q. “It was a handwritten letter on a single sheet of lined paper”. Did she tell you that?
A. No, she did not tell me that.

Q. “In Justice Levers’ handwriting. The paper was like the paper from a notepad, for example, like the notepad that Justice Levers made notes on about happenings around the court. The letter was addressed to the editor and at the bottom of the sheet of paper it was signed Leticia Barton. I did not get a chance to read the body of the letter, because I knew that Justice Levers would soon return to her desk and I was afraid she would see me reading it. Justice Levers came back to her desk shortly after and I gave her the phone and left her office”.
So do you see from that statement that all that Mrs Webb saw, if she is telling the truth, is a piece of paper with the “the editor” written at the top of it and “Leticia Barton” at the bottom? You see that, do you? [no response] But she did not get any chance to read what was actually on the document.
A. No, she did not read what was the contents.

Q. Pardon.
A. She did not read the contents. She saw the editorial page and she saw the signature in Justice Levers’ own handwriting.

Q. And you are saying, are you, that she could tell you that a letter damaging to the judiciary was going to be published on the basis of that, when she had not read the letter at all?
A. No. Can I explain, sir? Elizabeth, privately, told me that she saw a letter, Justice Levers was giving her this letter, and she did not get a chance to read it. When we met up she told me that Justice Levers actually got distracted by a phone call and she left.

Q. But would you mind explaining how you think that Mrs Webb could have told you that a damaging letter, damaging the judiciary, was going to be published later, when she had not the foggiest idea what the letter said?
A. No, but Elizabeth has been noticing that Justice Levers has been making her keep records of these letters that are appearing in the Net News, so she has suspicions and she would share her suspicions with me.

Q. Well, do you not realise that the document did not specify to which newspaper it was going to be sent, it just says “the editor”. It could be the editor of “The Gleaner” in Jamaica, could it not?
A. Well, normally the Net News are the ones that publish those letters.

Q. You see, this makes no sense, does it, Mrs Ebanks, because, if all that Betsy Webb saw was a piece of paper with the words “the editor” at the top and “Leticia Barton” at the bottom, how could she possibly think that that was necessarily a letter damaging to the judiciary? How could she do that?
A. Betsy has working with Justice Levers and she knows Justice Levers very, very well and she herself has listened to some of the things that Justice Levers has said, so she has her suspicions and she would share her suspicions with me, her concerns with me, rather.

Q. Well, why would the name “Leticia Barton” necessarily two weeks before publication give rise to the suspicion that it was a letter damaging to the judiciary? Why was that so?
A. All I can say, sir, is what Betsy told me, I believe her, she is truthful, and I saw and read the letter, it was about not less than two weeks when I saw the letter and I remember the name “Barton” and, when I read the letter, I saw “Leticia” and I remember that she told me that it was Leticia Barton.

Q. Well, can you explain to the Tribunal - I will give you this opportunity - how you think that Mrs Webb could have come to the conclusion that that was a letter or the contents of the letter were damaging to the judiciary when the sum total of her knowledge was a piece of paper with “the editor” written at the top and “Leticia Barton” at the bottom?
A. Can you repeat that question again, sir?

MR OTTY: Sir, with respect, the sum total of her knowledge also included the fact that the handwriting was Madam Justice Levers’ handwriting.

MR BRODIE: Oh yes.

THE CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR BRODIE: What I am asking you is this. Given that the sum total of Elizabeth Webb’s knowledge was a piece of paper with Madam Justice Levers’ handwriting on it, with “the editor” written at the top and “Leticia Barton” at the bottom two weeks before publication, how do you say that that could possibly give rise to the supposition that the letter itself was going to be damaging to the judiciary? How do you get there?
A. All I said, sir, is that I believe what Elizabeth says and I trusted her and I knew she was not lying.

Q. Well, is it possible, Mrs Ebanks, that you are mistaken and that you did not have your conversation with Mrs Webb until after the Leticia Barton letter had been published?
A. No, I am not mistaken. These are suspicions that were in our minds a long time, sir.

Q. You see, because one of the things that could have happened was this, was it not, is that the Leticia Barton letter is published and then Betsy says to you, “Actually, I knew that was going to happen, because I saw the letter on her desk”. She could have said that to you, could she not?
A. No, she did not see the contents of the letter.

Q. She did not see the contents?
A. No.

Q. But, once it was published in Cayman Net News, you could all see the contents of the letter, could you not?
A. Yes.

Q. All I am asking you is whether you think that Mrs Webb might have mentioned seeing the letter on Madam Justice Levers’ desk after the letter had been published in Cayman Net News?
A. No, sir, she saw it before it was published. The editorial and the signature, she saw it before it was published.

Q. But you cannot explain to this Tribunal how Mrs Webb could possibly have known that when she did not read the letter at all.
A. Well, she has her suspicions because there were letters coming out with these fictitious names.

Q. But how would the name Leticia Barton give rise to that kind of suspicion two weeks beforehand?
A. I do not know, sir. I do not know.

Q. You do not know, do you? It does not make any sense, does it, Mrs Ebanks?
A. It does to me.

Q. Pardon.
A. It does to me.

Q. Did she tell you that the handwritten document had “the editor” at the top and the name “Leticia Barton” at the bottom?
A. Leticia Barton was at the bottom.

Q. At the bottom?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. I wonder if the witness could see the letter. It is to be found at 733 of the core bundle. First of all, would you go to bundle N and to divider 15? That is the Leticia Barton letter, is it not?
A. Yes.

Q. No doubt you have read it more than once?
A. I have it read it the day when it was published and I have read it when it was shown to me by my attorney.

Q. By “your attorney”?
A. By our attorney.

Q. Would you just look at this document? Just take a moment to read it, will you? (Pause)
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you recognise that as being the Leticia Barton letter in handwriting?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. That is written on the paper that Mrs Webb has identified as being the kind of paper on which the letter was written. You follow that, do you? You understand that?
A. Yes, I understand.

Q. Do you notice that the Leticia Barton as published has got paragraphs in it?
A. Yes, I saw that.

Q. What you are looking at has got no paragraphs, has it?
A. No, except for just one quote.

Q. And it is closely written, is it not?
A. Yes, it is.

Q. Where is the signature?
A. At the bottom of it.

Q. It is on page 2, is it not?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Not on the bottom of a single sheet of paper, is it?
A. Not on this one.

Q. So, if Mrs Webb was saying that the signature was at the bottom of a single sheet of paper, she could not be right, could she - physically?
A. She did not say whether it was a single page.

Q. Well, she has told the Tribunal it was a single page.
A. But she did not tell me it was a single pages or how many pages.

Q. But she has told the Tribunal that it was a single page.
A. Well, she saw it, so she must know.

Q. Sorry.
A. She saw it, so she will be able to say how many pages it was and where the signature was.

Q. Well, she has already told the Tribunal that it was a single page. I have just shown it to you.
A. Well, I do not know how many pages. She saw it. I did not see it.

Q. Let us look at this one, too. Would you like to look at that one?
A. Sure.

3.30
Q. That is the same letter with paragraphs.
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Following as it was published in the press, do you see?
A. Yes.

Q. And you see the signature on page 3, is it not?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. it is not at the bottom of the first page, is it?
A. Not exact at the bottom.

Q. I am sorry?
A. it is at the bottom of the text but not the very bottom of the page.

Q. At the bottom of the first page there is no signature, the signature could not be at the bottom of the first page, could it?
A. No, sir, there is no space for a signature for this one at the bottom of the first page.

Q. Exactly. Would you look back at paragraph 28 of Mrs Webb’s statement. In the middle of paragraph 28 let me remind you of what she says. “Whilst making the call I noticed the piece of paper that she had handed to me to scan on her desk a few minutes earlier. It was a handwritten letter on a single sheet of lined notepaper in Justice Levers’ handwriting. The paper was like the paper from a notepad, for example like the notepad Justice Levers made notes on about happenings around the court. The letter was addressed to the editor and at the bottom of the sheet of paper it was signed Leticia Barton.” So she telling this Tribunal on oath that the letter was written on a single sheet of paper.
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Having now shown you the documents which is the letter written out in Madam Justice Levers’ handwriting on identical paper if it was so written out the signature could not have been at the bottom of a single sheet of paper, could it?
A. I do not know how many pages. As I said all I have been told is that she saw this letter, she saw the addressee and she saw the signature, and it was in Justice Levers’ handwriting. I do not know how many pages, I do not know what it looks like.

Q. But we do know how many pages, Mrs ---

THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think there is much future in this, Mr Brodie.

MR BRODIE: No, I entirely agree.

THE CHAIRMAN: You are putting it cannot have been a letter as long as that which you have given examples of and she has seen versions of. It does not follow that a single sheet was not seen with the top and bottom as you have described, and anyway it is not this witness who saw it.

MR BRODIE: I agree, but I am putting it to this witness because I am going to invite the witness to say that maybe Mrs Webb was not telling the truth, that is a possibility.

THE CHAIRMAN: That does not matter to the Tribunal what this witness thinks about it.

MR BRODIE: it is very difficult when one has this connecting evidence.

THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, indeed.

MR BRODIE: And it seems to me in fairness I have got to put it to the witness. If your Lordship thinks I have done enough I will leave the subject.

THE CHAIRMAN: I think you have traversed it sufficiently.

MR BRODIE: My Lord, that is as much improvised cross-examination that I have, but there are other matters which I may wish to return to. Might I reserve my position until tomorrow morning, which keeps us still well within the timetable.

THE CHAIRMAN: You are asking that the witness be brought back tomorrow in case you have thought of something else to ask her?

MR BRODIE: I think what I will do is telephone Mr Otty during the rest of the day if I do not require her, but I just need to think if there are other matters I ought to put to this witness.

THE CHAIRMAN: You understand, madam, that unfortunately counsel is not prepared at this stage to terminate his cross-examination of you.
A. Yes, sir.

Q. So that as you were warned might occur, that you would be asked to come back tomorrow that is still possible. You are released by the court for the time being. Please do not talk to anybody else about the case in the interim, and if you can be released then arrangements will be made to inform you of that before you return tomorrow morning. But if you have no message in the meanwhile please will you be kind enough to come back to the seat where you now are at 9.30 tomorrow?
A. Yes, sir, most certainly.

THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.

(The witness withdrew)

MR OTTY: Sir, I wonder if I might use some of the remaining time to raise a number of procedural matters.

THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, please do, Mr Otty.

MR OTTY: There are four in number and the first the position in relation to Nora Ebanks. Secondly whether the Tribunal would be assisted by hearing any of the tapes from any of the hearings that have been referred to in evidence. Thirdly the scope of issues if any that it is now necessary to hear from Mr Sanderson on. And fourthly the position of Mr Christopher Levers, Madam Justice Levers’ son, in respect of whom the Tribunal will recall a decision as to whether he needed to give evidence was put off until after Mrs Webb’s evidence.

Taking those in turn as far as Nora Ebanks is concerned this was one of the matters addressed in my procedural note of yesterday. There are in essence two matters of potential conflict between Nora Ebanks evidence and the evidence that the Tribunal has heard from other sources. They are firstly the precise course of events relating to the Campbell -v- Parsons and the rolling of the eyes and the number of occasions, one or more, upon which laughter occurred. Secondly, and perhaps of some greater significance, the matter that Sir David Simmons may have been referring to when he asked Mr Akiwumi about whether any further matters needed to be put to Miss Hennie during the course of her evidence. In paragraph 35 of her evidence she recalls a conversation at which Nora Ebanks was present in which it is said that Madam Justice Levers was critical of other members of the judiciary including the Chief Justice, and made reference in particular I believe to the legal analyst’s job. We are making enquiries still, sir, as to whether or not -- I am told Ms Ebanks is available to give evidence tomorrow. Given that we are not likely to run into trouble on the timetable I would propose that she be called before the Tribunal to give brief evidence in relation to at least the second matter, so that the Tribunal is able to have the totality of the available evidence before it.

The third matter ...

THE CHAIRMAN: You have dealt with the second matter?

MR OTTY: No, I am sorry, the second matter is the hearing of the tapes. Neither myself nor Mr Brodie consider the Tribunal will be particularly assisted by going down that course, but we are clearly in the Tribunal’s hands.

THE CHAIRMAN: Nor does the Tribunal.

MR OTTY: I am grateful, sir. The third matter is a matter of some greater substance and that relates to the position of Mr Sanderson. If I could give the Tribunal the history in relation to this matter, prior to receipt of Mr Brodie’s opening submissions it had never been suggested by any side that Mr Sanderson should give evidence as a witness before this Tribunal, despite the fact that Stuarts quite properly did in correspondence and in submissions on other occasions identify a series of other witnesses in addition to those that we had identified in our provisional timetable. Mr Brodie’s opening submissions then arrived and the material paragraph, and particularly the material paragraph of those - this is in bundle C - is paragraph 5.4, where it is said that while Madam Justice Levers has no direct evidence on which she can rely she believes that the coincidence of Mr Sanderson’s animosity towards her with the antagonism of the two Canadian court reporters, Ms Myren and Mrs Rouse, leads to a conclusion that they together have set out to undermine and destroy her relationship with the Chief Justice and her tenure as a Grand Court judge.

The Tribunal has now heard of course the evidence from Ms Rouse, Ms Myren and Miss [REDACTED] and will no doubt have noted that Mr Brodie did not put to any of those three witnesses that they were party to a joint conspiracy with Mr Sanderson to that effect.

The final document that I would wish to show the Tribunal as far as the sequence of events is concerned is that that was served yesterday setting out the issues upon which Mr Brodie has indicated he would wish to question Mr Sanderson if he were to give evidence. I think that has been provided in loose copy as well, but it is also in bundle A at page 3140. I would be grateful if the Tribunal could turn that document up. It is behind divider 3 and is a document headed Response to supplementary opening submissions of counsel to the Inquiry. You will see in this two page document that five areas of questioning are identified. Items 1 and 2 would appear only to be apparently relevant to a case that Mr Sanderson was somehow conspiring out of ill motive against Madam Justice Levers, in respect of which as I say the other alleged conspirators have not been questioned. Item 3 relates to complaints of conduct on the part of Mr Sanderson, and as to that the Tribunal will recall that prior to the commencement of this hearing, Madam Justice Levers representatives have made it quite clear that she did not make any allegations of misconduct against other members of the judiciary.

Item 4 contains the allegation that I have already referred to from paragraph 5.4 of the opening submissions, of an active undertaking to undermine and destroy; and as to that again there is some concern we respectfully submit at the failure to put that case to the other three alleged conspirators. And as to item 5 again there appears to be an inconsistency with the stance adopted previously by Madam Justice Levers representatives that she had no intention to make any allegations against other judges.

There is a further problem in relation to the handling of item 5, and that is that Stuarts have indicated they would wish to put in relation to that question certain of the operation Tempura documents which I mentioned at the outset of the hearing today and which have now been sent as I understand it to Mr Sanderson. A further problem arises because as I understand it, and Campbells are here to correct me if that is not the position, on those documents he has seen he says there are a number of serious inaccuracies and he would wish to take independent legal advice as to how to respond to any questions in relation to those documents, given the sensitivities of the matter they address; and there is clearly a concern as to the impact such a course might have in fairness to Mr Sanderson on the Tribunal timetable.

Against that background I would respectfully submit that one of two courses should be followed. Either the Tribunal should take the view that in the light of the evidence it has heard and the extent or otherwise of the allegations put to the witnesses already before the Tribunal, the evidence of Mr Sanderson should be dispensed with and he should not be required to give any evidence orally before the Tribunal.