Lawyers for ULP MPs claim ‘big victory’

Lawyers for Prime Minister Dr Ralph Gonsalves and government ministers Dr Douglas Slater, Cecil McKie and Clayton Burgin have described recent rulings of the Court of Appeal, which dismissed several appeals brought by the opposition New Democratic Party (NDP), as a “big victory”.{{more}}

However, Kay Bacchus-Browne, part of the appellants’ legal team, says they are looking to take the matter to the Privy Council.

Bacchus-Browne, who declined to speak in any detail about the matter, said “It is almost certain” that they are going to take the matters, which had been brought by candidates of the New Democratic Party (NDP) in the December 2010 General Elections, to the Privy Council.

On May 31, the appeal panel, made up of Justice of Appeal Janice Pereira, and acting justices of appeal Ian Donaldson Mitchell QC and Tyrone Chung ruled in favour of the g,overnment ministers and Chief Magistrate Sonya Young, who had also appealed an earlier ruling of the court.

The Chief Magistrate was successful in her application that the leave granted to the NDP senator Vynnette Frederick, for judicial review of the Chief Magistrate’s decision to refuse to issue summonses in relation to two private complaints brought in January 2011 against Prime Minister Ralph Gonsalves, be set aside.

The Chief Magistrate had issued a certificate of refusal in relation to both complaints, the day after they were filed by Frederick. She ruled that the statement complained of was not a statement of fact, and the statement did not related to the personal character or conduct of Frederick.

However, after a series of applications and counter applications, on November 15, 2011, Justice Gertel Thom granted leave for Frederick to challenge the decision of the Chief Magistrate, by way of judicial review. Last week’s ruling set aside Thom’s decision.

Richard Williams, one of the lawyers for the respondents, noted in an interview with SEARCHLIGHT that the appeal court judges found that when Frederick made the application for leave, material which was relevant to the case was withheld, and this was not done innocently. Williams said the court of appeal found that the judge should have granted the respondents’ application to strike out the leave.

Williams said the appeal judges found that information was being withheld wilfully, and therefore, they were not entitled to the leave which they had been granted.

According to Williams, the judges also found that in the matter which alleged that Gonsalves made references to Frederick’s sexuality at a meeting held at Park Hill on August 29, 2010 could not stand.

Wiliams said when they went before the trial judge, Frederick swore an affidavit stating that the context in which the words Gonsalves used the word “tomboy” was an assault on her sexuality. Frederick said that people in the crowd were shouting “lesbian”.

“When we were listening to the transcripts, the word lesbian was not used. As a result of that, the judge when she heard the case, relied on those assertions (the word lesbian being used) and because she took those chants into account, she found that what Dr Gonsalves said could have been an implication on her (Frederick’s) character. As it is now found that the words weren’t used, the judges didn’t allow the decision to stand,” Williams explained.

Trinidadian counsel, Keith Scotland, assisted by Kay Bacchus-Browne and Nicole Sylvester, also appealed Justice Gertel Thom’s decision on November 15, 2011, to refuse leave to opposition New Democratic Party candidates Dr Linton Lewis, Vynnette Frederick and Nigel Stephenson to seek Judicial Review of decisions made by Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Colin Williams to take over and discontinue private criminal complaints they had filed against government ministers Dr Douglas Slater, Cecil McKie and Clayton Burgin, on January 11, 2011 at the Serious Offences Court.

Thom’s rulings were upheld by the Appeal Court.

An appeal was also heard against Thom’s order to ‘set aside’ leave granted by Justice Frederick Bruce-Lyle to private citizen Marva Chance to seek Judicial Review. Justice Thom was of the view that leave ought not to have been granted to Chance, as there was no realistic prospect of success of her claim for Judicial Review of the DPP’s decision to discontinue private criminal complaints against Afi Jack. The Appeal Court upheld Thom’s decision.

Richard Williams, commenting on the outcome of the cases, described the rulings as a “big victory”.

“This is a big victory! And to me, it looked as if the NDP was basing their political fortunes on the outcome of this case. The way that they framed this case, if they were successful, it would have eventually led to new elections. We think the outcome is just and right and If you want to win an election you have to do so at the polls…,” Williams told SEARCHLIGHT.

In the cases relating to the Chance, Stephenson, Frederick and Lewis, Richard Williams said the DPP acted rightfully in taking over and discontinuing the matters.

“After case laws were examined, the judges found that the amount of evidence and type of evidence that was required to show bias on his (the DPP’s) part was not present in the case. So because it was ruled that the DPP has a constitutional discretion and unless you could show bias or bad faith and have good and strong evidence to support, then you can’t attack it,” he said.

“All things like his past political affiliations and place of employment are not important…,” Williams said.