COMMENTARY: Steely Resolve – Quest For Natural Justice John Mussington And Jacklyn Frank

Steely Resolve – Quest For Natural Justice

John Mussington And Jacklyn Frank

RAWLSTON POMPEY

None may deny the that ‘Justices’ anywhere, shall exhibit with professional competence, that which they know and do best. The ‘London Privy Council Law Lords’ may have been so impressed with ‘Barbudan resident; Environmentalist; Litigant- claimant, respondent and appellant; ‘John Mussington,’ that they quoted from his affidavit. The most heart-wrenching lines in the ‘Judgement’ states; ‘Years of history, and what was a site of environmental beauty, was being devastated’ [JM: UKPC 3: No. 0116 of 2021: Paragraph 13].

JUDICIAL NONSENSICALITY

It reeks of ‘Judicial Nonsensicality,’ when ‘Courts of First Instancy and Intermediacy,’ without the benefit of ‘Scientific’ knowledge, expertise and evidence, sought to rule adversely against litigating Claimants, possessing such knowledge and such expertise.’ Firstly, when the Claimants instituted ‘Civil’ proceedings against the ‘Development Control Authority (DCA) et al’ for ‘Judicial Review,’ it was not never because they were ‘Busybodies’ [Webster J: ECSC: April 29, 2021].

CONCERN FOR ECOLOGY

Contrasting, the ‘Ruling’ by the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (ECSC), the ‘British Law Lords,’ giving acute consideration to the issues judicially and legitimately raised, noted in their judgement; ‘Mr. Mussington has demonstrated a particular concern for the ecology of the ‘Development Site’ [Paragraph 56]. Then unanimously, the ‘Law Lords wrote; ‘The ‘Board’ shall advise ‘His Majesty’ that the ‘Appeal’ should be allowed’ [Paragraph 60].

PERSPECTIVE

This featured article looks at certain ‘Rules’ as contained in the ‘Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court Civil Proceedings Rules’ (ECSC/CPR)- 2000’ [Amended: May 2014]. It specifically looks at litigation, particularly as it affects; (a) ‘The Physical Planning Act’ [No. 6 of 2003]; (b) The behavior of the (I) ‘First Instant; and (ii) Intermediate Courts,’ as they relate to ‘Judicial Review Claims; and (iii) Litigious ‘Standing’ in challenging governmental bodies and agencies on decisions affecting citizen’s interests.

DEDICATION

Dedicated to; Former Prime Minister, Dr. Baldwin Spencer; and Sir Steadroy ‘Cutie’ Benjamin.’ They had earlier failed in securing ‘Standing in Judicial Review Claims; (a) ‘Dato Tan Kay Hoc; and (b) The indoor ‘Car Park; Litigants with ‘Seminal Judgementsl (i) ‘Alister Thomas-Accounts Committee; and (ii) John Mussington; and (iii) Jacklyn Frank.’

LITIGIOUS WOES

In the litigious proceedings, ‘John Mussington and Jacklyn Frank’ appeared to have caused more troubles to the ‘CEO and Developer,’ than of rain showers falling upon; (I) ‘Codrington; (ii) Coco Point; and (iii) The ‘Third Barbuda Airstrip.’ Clearly, it was non-adherence to the ‘Rule of Law’ by the ‘Development-issuing authority,’ with power vested in ‘Town and Country Planner and Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Frederick Southwell.’ that precipitated the ‘Litigious Woes.’

FRIVOLOUSLY AND VEXATIOUSLY

When the ‘Appellants caused the institution of appellate proceedings before the ‘Apex Court, the ‘London-based Judicial Committee of the Privy Council against the decisions of; (I) ‘The Court of First Instance; and (ii) Court of Appeal,’ it may have been for the purpose of eliminating behavior that lay persons might be inclined to associate with the instinctive behavior of Kangaroos.’ The Law Lords’ appeared not to have viewed the litigious proceedings as ‘Frivolous and Vexatious.’

PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE

It is of ‘Paramount Importance’ that the citizenry understands that ‘Parliament’ appeared most mindful of the environment. The legislative body anticipated that certain infrastructural development may impact both life and the environment. It also knew that as circumstances necessitate and situations demand, there may be no obedience to Law. Parliament also knows that in a democracy; and in civil society, except a ‘Renegade State,’ the ‘Rule of Law’ shall prevail. Likened to the citizenry, the ‘State’ shall be subjected to Law’ [CO: 1981: FCP: ‘D’]. Renegade States, are those likened to our ‘CARICON neighbor-Haiti.’

KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERTISE

Unlike the apparent insensitive and reckless judicial behavior of the ‘First Instance and Intermediate Courts,’ the ‘UKPC Board,’ neither insulted the intelligence, nor expertise of the ‘Appellants.’ It never sought to reduce their shared concerns to ‘Figment of Imagination.’ Consciously aware that the former possesses such scientific knowledge and expertise, the ‘Law Lords’ without circumspection or rejection, accepted that which they accepted, ‘Appellant John Mussington,’ so well-articulated.

SCIENTIFIC BACKGROUND

Had it not been so, the ‘Board,’ through ‘Lord Boyd’s Delivery,’ may not have written in the ‘Judgement’; In particular, Mr. Mussington’s; (i) ‘Scientific Background;’ (ii) His knowledge of the flora and fauna in the area; (iii) His status as a local resident; and (iv) His experience in conducting ‘Environmental Assessment’ [UKPCA: No. 0116 of 2021: Paragraph 58].

DOCILITY AND STUPIDITY

It has been to the professional knowledge that people were positioned more for their ‘Exploitative Usefulness,’ than for their professional competence. These were usually the ones, when things go wrong, often found themselves being pushed ‘Under the bus.’ But then, should ‘Executive Officers’ subjected themselves to be culturally-docile and not annoyingly stupid, then ‘Docility and Stupidity,’ shall wreak havoc upon them, all of that which remains of their lives.

NATURAL JUSTICE

Impelled to cause the ‘Judiciary,’ to visited the supposedly, the ‘Watchdog’ for the citizenry, the judicial system has turned upon these litigants like ‘Hyaenas.’ Incidentally, such visitation was simply, as of a fundamental human right, as they seek ‘Natural Justice.’ This, in legal proceedings means; ‘The right to be heard.’ That which they may have realized was that even that which they had caused to be visited upon the State, through one of the two most dangerous ‘Arms of Government,’ was the ‘Executive.’

GOVERNMENTAL ARMS

The other being the ‘Legislature.’ When these ‘Governmental Arms,’ come together, only the ‘London Privy Council’ could put them asunder. Just about ‘Half the Trouble,’ holder of; (i) ‘Airport Runway; and (ii) Development Permits’ [July 13, 2018: July 18, 2012: UKPC 3: No. 0116 of 2021: Paragraph 22] the ‘Government of Antigua and Barbuda’ may have experienced with the construction on ‘Sister Isle Barbuda,’ litigants have contended, that it was attributed to several administrative factors.’

BRINGING TO OBEDIENCE

In the ‘John Mussing/Jacklyn Frank’ proceedings, among other issues, the litigation may also have been to ‘Bring to Obedience;’ (a) ‘The Town and Country Planner, Frederick Southwell; (b) That he might be judicially-forced into ‘Complying with Existing Law; (c) That the ‘Antigua and Barbuda Airport Authority; and (d) Development Control authority (DCA),’ not only fall into line with reality, but also with the residential concerns of the litigants. The ‘Authority/Board’ shall know that the ‘Act’ binds the Crown’ [PPA: No 6 of 2003: Section 82].

MINDFUL OF ENVIRONMENT

The ‘Physical Planning Act’ makes it sufficiently and perfectly clear that even Law-degreed, but non-legal practicing ‘Member of Parliament, Maria Vanessa Bird-Browne’ understands. The member, likened to her daughter, ‘Princess Peace Xandria Browne 2,’ knows that; ‘An ‘Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)’ shall be carried out in respect to an application for a ‘Land Development Permit’ [PPA: No. 6 of 2003: Section 23].

DUALED-POSITION

That which appeared most damning to the ‘British Law Lords,’ was that the ‘Dual-Positioned;’ (i) ‘Town and Country Planner; and (ii) Chief Executive officer’ of the ‘DCA’ [Section 6 (2)],’ had purportedly; (a) ‘Issued a ‘Development Permit; (b) Allowed construction to begin before ‘an Environment Impact Assessment (EIA)’ was obtained and submitted to the ‘Authority.’ Those that guided the ‘Affidavit,’ appeared to have done to him a great disservice.

ORAL CONVERSATION

As a capital and developmental project, had the ‘Law’ been followed by the ‘DCA,’ with both ‘Executive and Ministerial’ oversight, the ‘British Law Lords’ may not have looked at either the apparent sloppy execution of ‘Executive’ authority’ or incompetency. The ‘Privy Councilors, guided by ‘Law’ and Procedure,’ observed ‘an Affidavit’ that speaks to sheer absurdity.’ These they noted; (i) ‘On 19 September, 2018, Mr. Southwell stated that he had granted the development on 18 July 2018; (ii) This was on the strength of ‘an Oral Conversation’ with environmental officer, ‘Ato Lewis’ [UKPC 3: No. 0116 of 2021: Paragraph 21].

JUDGEMENT OF WOE

Apparent lack of familiarity, and non-adherence with the very provisions contained in the ‘Physical Planning Act,’ that guides administrative decisions and enforcement by the ‘Town and Country Planner, Frederick Southwell,’ have not only brought a ‘Judgement of Woe,’ upon the ‘State, its agencies and agents,’ but also placed his professional and administrative competence under serious public and ministerial scrutiny. Thus, no member of the ‘Authority’ shall take refuge, neither under governance, nor lack of ministerial oversight.

CONFIDENCE AND FAITH

Ever since, the nation’s attainment of ‘Sovereignty,’ the people have reposed ‘Great Confidence’ in the ‘Law Lords and Law Ladies,’ that have graced those ‘Chambers.’ Collectively, the populace has also placed ‘Great Faith’ in their apparent-endowed ‘Reason and Conscience.’ These appeared to have been gravely lacking within the ‘Judicial’ system of the ‘Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS).’ Such would have been made evident by the voting population’s total rejection of the ‘Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) Referendum’ [November 6, 2018].

BASTION OF HOPE

When eminent ‘Justice Dame Janice Pereira DBE,’ former Chief Justice of the ‘Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (ECSC),’ sought to impress upon civil society that the ‘Courts’ represents the ‘Bastion of Hope,’ given the ‘UKPC John Mussington and Jacklyn Frank Judgement,’ such may now be seen as nothing short of making ‘Tomfoolery’ of litigants and the criminally-accused. The adjudicators appeared never wanted to give ‘Hope’ a chance. Many appeared more fearful of public administrators, than they are of the devil.

HOUNDING COURTS

That which the ‘Appellants’ may have experienced, was that; (I) ‘The Court of First Instance; and (ii) Intermediate Courts,’ may have become ‘Hounding Courts,’ than being ‘Watching Dogs.’  The ‘London-based Appellate Court- ‘Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC),’ was not only universally recognized, but has also enjoyed overwhelmingly respect from a great many people within the Commonwealth.

COLLECTIVELY AND UNANIMOUSLY

Informingly, in the delivered ‘Judgement’ by ‘Justice of Appeal, Webster,’ on the 3-member panel of Justices, ‘Collectively and Unanimously,’ ruled that the ‘Appellants had no ‘Standing’ in their application for ‘Judicial Review Claim.’ The ‘Judgement’ of the ‘London Privy Council Board (JCSC),’ appeared to have clearly put to shame the ‘Justices of Appeal’ on the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (ECSC).’

OBNOXIOUS PLATITUDE

Yet, by the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (ECSC), ‘Black Judges’ continue to see things ‘Black.’ The eminent and learned Judge, His Lordship, Justice Paul Anthony Webster’ reportedly dismissed the ‘Appellants’ concerns and interests’ on the basis that there was no evidence that they have any expertise in the subject-matter of the application. As referenced in the ‘Seminal Judgement,’ the ‘Court of Appellate’ determined that the ‘Appellants’ fitted the legal description of ‘Busybodies’ [Paragraph 56].

LEGAL DEFINTION

While the terminology remains a ‘Legal Definition,’ it offends human sensitivity and dignity for ‘Courts’ to use pejoratives in ‘Judgements,’ particularly, those adverse to the interests of litigants. In the ‘Baptism of Privy Council Fire,’ backed up with a persistent grueling probe into his scientific knowledge, ‘Dr. David Dorset,’ likened to the rest of the ‘5-member Legal Team,’ appeared virtually knowledgeably helpless to questions by the ‘Board.’ Still, if any attorney deserves ‘Retainer’s Fees’ for his failed and disappointing efforts, then it shall be him.

OBNOXIOUS JUDICIAL PLATITUDE

Invariably, subtly an adjudicator may use facetiously, or ‘Obnoxious Judicial Platitude.’ The Case that makes the point has been that of ‘Environmentalists John Mussington, together with Jacklyn Frank.’  This may not necessarily have been true of the eminent and learned Judge, His Lordship, Justice Paul Anthony Webster.’ When he reportedly delivered the ‘Judgement, dismissed the ‘Appellants’ concerns and interests,’ it was reported that such on the basis that there was no evidence. It was the ruling of the Court’ that they had no expertise in the subject-matter of the application. Thus, some ‘Justices’ may wish to be more judicially-discrete with their expressions.

BUSYBODIES: DUMB AND IGNORANT

As referenced by the ‘Law Lord,’ the ‘Court of Appeal’ concluded that the ‘Appellants fitted the legal description of ‘Busybodies’ Paragraph 56]. While the terminology remains a legal definition, for the mischievous, still it is capable of being deemed ‘Reprehensible.’ Even the ‘Dumb and Ignorant’ know that it offends human sensitivity and dignity. Thus, no ‘Court’ shall use pejoratives in ‘Judgements,’ particularly, those delivered adverse to the interests of litigants.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Those that ‘Plan Towns and Countries,’ shall not only be mindful of that which was prescribed by parliamentary enactments, but also protect their integrity. The appellants had shared concerns. These reportedly emanated from as much as; (a) ‘The private leasehold of land; to (b) To the controversial construction of an airstrip; to (c) The ecological and landscape destruction; to (d) Protection of the environment; to (e) The impact on their own lives, in residency and close proximity of the development on ‘Sister Isle, Barbuda.’

ENVIRONMENTALLY DOCILE

The possibilities then existed, may very well have been a lethargic approach to management. It may have been observed that ‘CEO’s that became ‘Environmentally Docile,’ were often given; (i) Bad legal advice; and (iv) Invariably, show non-adherence to the ‘Rule of Law.’ They are not wary in making exploitative environmentally-influenced decisions. Not infrequently, disguisedly, and with cunning design for ‘Circumvention of Law.

DESTRUCTION: BARBUDA

Given these contentions, the ‘Development Control Authority (DCA),’ could reasonably be apportioned more blame for the environmental troubles, than the catastrophic trail of destruction left by the ‘Category-5 Hurricane Irma’ [September 6, 2017]. This ‘Category,’ in economic terms, had been the language of ‘former Finance Minister, Harold Lovell’ [2004-2014]. It was ‘non-adherence to Law that had forced aggrieved residents and environmental activists; (I) ‘John Mussington; and (ii) Jacklyn Frank,’ into litigating against the ‘Authority.’

MALADY OF SUBSERVIENCY

These were seemingly among other variables that may have compounded the ‘Administrative Difficulties,’ that may have gravely affected ‘Town and Country Planner and Chief Executive Officer, Frederick Southwell.’ That which it may not be too late to recognize, is that he shall not only always be mindful, but also watchful. Most importantly, he shall always endeavor to; (a) ‘Avoid the ‘Malady of Subserviency;’ and (b) Protect his ‘Human Dignity and Worth.’

HAMMER IN HAND

People like these, could never be around musician that make ‘Pan.’ They always have a ‘Hammer in Hand’ to tune pan and ‘pound’ a stupid man.’ Even metaphorically, ‘Town and Country Planners’ shall know that the ‘Element that melts steel,’ is also the same element that hardens ceramics.’ This, without consternation, can be attested too, by former ‘Town and Country Planner, Aldin Crump’ [Carlisle Bay: Mangrove Destruction incident].

STEELY RESOLVE: SEMINAL JUDGMENT

With a ‘Steely Resolve,’ sheer adamancy and intrepidity, taking one ‘Giant Step’ into litigious history, litigants ‘John Mussington and Jacklyn Frank,’ saw the ‘London Privy Council’ exposed the irrationality, impotence and ignorance of those refusing or hearing ‘Judicial Reviews,’ within this nation’s jurisprudence. Even so, such ‘Step’ may not necessarily have been about the ‘Leap,’ but of a ‘Seminal Judgment,’ the litigants had successfully persuaded the ‘Apex Court’ into delivering [February 27, 2024].

KNOWLEDGE AND REASONING

In the ‘Verbal Baptism; – Privy Council,’ backed up with a persistent grueling probe into his legal ‘Knowledge and Reasoning,’ ‘Dr. David Dorset,’ likened to the rest of the ‘5-member Legal Team,’ appeared virtually knowledgeably helpless to questions by the ‘Board.’ Still, if any attorney deserves ‘Retainer’s Fees’ for his failed and disappointing efforts, then it shall be him.

ISSUE: COMPLIANT WITH ‘PPA’

Research has revealed that having ‘Taken Judicial Notice’ of documents duly filed by the named residents, Her Ladyship, Justice Rosalyn E. Wilkinson’ advised the litigating parties; ‘There was an arguable Case in the documents filed.’ Among the issues contained therein was; ‘Whether Government had complied with the ‘Physical Planning Act (PPA)’ before construction began. The parties to the litigious proceedings were; (i) ‘Antigua and Barbuda Authority (ABBA); (ii) Development Control Authority (DCA)’ [Observer: August 3, 2018].

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

That which has been among other observations by the ‘British Law Lords, was the question of Law’ [Section 17: Physical Planning Act (PPA)’ mandated that due process shall be followed. Satisfied with the judicial approach of ‘Her Ladyship Justice Rosalyn E. Wilkinson’ who initially granted ‘Injunctive Relief’ to the appellants, the ‘Law Lords,’ not only observed, but may also have given consideration to the legal-thought-process of ‘Her Ladyship,’ wrote; ‘Wilkinson J, noted this provision’ [Paragraph 51: No. 6 of 2003].

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

Unlike the communities of; (i) ‘Old Road,’ where residents had raised concerns over the environmental destruction of the ‘Mangrove’ landscape at Carlisle Bay’ for expansion of a tourist resort; and (ii) Residents of Bendals, harbored fears that the bridge linking the community to other communities was said to be under imminent threat of collapse,’ and took ‘Affirmative Action,’ with concerns for the environment, two residents of Barbuda resorted to the ‘Judiciary.’

ALDIN CRUMP: EXTREME PRESSURE

From professional duties, in their numbers and defiance, they blockade of roadways. Then ‘Town and Country Planner and Chief Executive Officer, and now ‘Board Member of ‘DCA,’ Aldin Crump, came under extreme pressure by; (i) ‘The ‘Old Road’ community; and (ii) Verbal wrath of ‘Environment activist James Kublai’ Mannix.’  A ‘Town Hall,’ meeting at the ‘Old Road Government Primary School,’ to ventilate the residents’ concerns and feeling, ended in chaos and confusion.

BLOCKHEADED AGENTS

Though not necessarily in endangerment of physical harm, ‘Precautionary Measures’ necessitated ‘VIP Protection,’ for then ‘Prime Minister, Sir Lester B. Bird KCN.’ He was advisedly, whisked away from an environment, that had nothing to do with ‘Ecological Destruction.’ These were often occasioned, when public administrators and ‘Block-headed Agents’ of the State or public bodies or authorities, refused to hear the concerns of those providing them with ‘Privileged Positions.’

INSTITUTIONALIZED INHERITANCES

Factually, most of the citizenry have highly regarded this judicial institution as their ‘Apex Court.’ Constitutionally, it has been part of the judicial arrangements. Though foisted upon, and the people of the twin-island nation of ‘Antigua and Barbuda,’ as has been the ‘Jurisprudential Practice,’ it continues to be one of the ‘Institutionalized Inheritances’ from the ‘United Kingdom’ [CO: No. 1106: November 1, 1981].

RECKLESS ABANDON

Therefore, none shall, with ‘Reckless Abandon,’ flout the ‘Law.’ None shall also not be allowed to do so with impunity. The commentary further looks at the recent ‘Judgement’ delivered by the ‘Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC)’.in favor of Barbudan aggrieved residents, litigants and appellants, ‘John Mussington and Jacklyn Frank.’ In the Litigious Fiasco’ the ‘CEO’ was not alone.

COMPOSITION OF AUTHORITY

The ‘Judgement’ of the ‘London Privy Council’ seeks to guide the better understanding of the functions of the ‘DCA Authority.’ It speaks to, inter alia; (a) ‘The apparent peculiar issuance of a ‘Development Permit’ to the ‘Government of Antigua and Barbuda; (b) By the ‘Government’s agency, the ‘Development Control Authority (DCA).’ Instructively, the ‘Composition of the Statutory Authority’ of the ‘Development Control Authority (DCA)’ is one of ‘11-members.’

MEMBERS OF AUTHORITY

The ‘Members’ include a ‘Chairman,’ identified in the persona of; (I) ‘Maurice Merchant: (ii) The Town and Country Planner; (iii) The Director of Public Works, Aldin Crump; (iv) The Chief Health Inspector; (v) The officer in charge of the Lands Division; (vi) The Chief Lands Surveyor; (vii) The Director of Agriculture: (viii) The Chief Environment officer Dianne Black-Lane; and (ix: x & xi); Three other knowledgeable persons, not holding public office and appointed by the Minister’ [Physical Planning Act: No.6 of 2003: First Schedule: 2 (1)].

FUNDAMENTAL BREACHES

While the ‘Authority’ seemingly ‘snoozed,’ the ‘DoE’ sought to keep the ‘DCA’s CEO’ wide awake. Having observed ‘Fundamental Breaches’ by the ‘Development Control Authority (DCA),’ factually; frankly and brutally,’ a letter purportedly dispatched from ‘Chief Environmental officer, Dianne Black-Layne.’ unambiguously states; ‘The Department of Environment had been able to observe that; (a) ‘The work had been well-advanced; and (b) Many of the negative environmental impacts had already occurred’ [DoE: November 28, 2017: Paragraph 16]. Such information may have been acute consideration by the ‘Law Lords.’

APPELLANTS’ CONCERNS

The ‘Appellants’ appeared particularly concerned about the impact on; (I) ‘The environment; (ii) Archaeology; (iii) Hydrology; and (iv) Biodiversity of Barbuda’ [Paragraph 14]. While people seemed confused, the ‘UKPC Law Lords,’ have stated the primary reason for the proceedings. Simply put, the Law Lords intimated that it was due to; ‘The Respondents failure to adhere to the ‘Rule of Law’ [Paragraph 55].

STRUGGLE FOR JUSTICE

Well known for its rationalized-thought-out ‘Civil and Criminal Judgments,’ the ‘JCPC,’ has impacted litigants, more as a judicial institution to be been seen more as the ‘Bastion of Hope.’ This was particularly the case, for a great many people that have always been forced under constant ‘Struggle for Justice’ from both; (I) ‘The ‘First Instance; and (ii) The Intermediate Courts.’

FIGMENT OF IMAGINATION

It may have been seen today, that litigants across the region, continues to fight for ‘Natural Justice,’ have seen a jurisprudential practice, that brings nothing but horror and misery. Whether for reasons of; (a) ‘Self-misdirection; or (b) Figment of Imagination,’ the three-panel-Judge, comprising; (i) ‘Chief Justice Dame Janice Pereira DBE, LLB; Justices of Appeal (ii) Mario Michel; and (iii) Paul Anthony Webster’ sided with, the ‘Judiciary’s counterpart, the ‘Executive,’ and ruled in favor of the ‘Development Control Authority (DCA).’

LAW LORDS: PROBING WRATH

Instructively, the agency, the ‘Appellants appeared not to have qualms with, may have been the ‘Department of the Environment (DoE).’ The agency may have been unresponsive to letters purportedly penned to it for disclosure of information. However, sourced, this may have been the information that may have exposed the ‘Development Control Authority, Town and Country Planner and Chief Executive officer, Frederick Southwell, as well as Leading Legal Team Attorney, Dr. David Dorset’ to the ‘Probing Wrath’ of the ‘Law Lords.’

STATE TO ITS LAW

Through their attorneys, they have ‘Convincingly and Persuasively’ moved the ‘British Law Lords;’ (I) ‘Patrick Stewart Hodge; (ii) Phillip James Sales; (iii) George Andrew M. Legatt; (iv) Andrew Stephen Burrowes; and (v) Colin Boyd’ to see that which, individually, those supposedly with superior legal knowledge appeared too ‘Blockheaded a Mule,’ to comprehend. For these indigent litigants/appellants, they have boldly and bravely sought, and fought successfully in subjecting the ‘State to its own Law.’

JUDICIALLY GRAVITATED

This was made clear, when, in instituted litigious proceedings, his ‘Law Firm,’ through an associate, Dr. David Dorset,’ humiliatingly lost a ‘Court Battle’ to Barbudan residents; (I) ‘John Mussington; and (ii) Jacklyn Frank’ [ANR: August 26, 2018]. Incidentally, when ‘former High Court Judge, Her Ladyship, Justice Rosalyn Wilkinson,’ allowed the residents/litigants/claimants a judicial hearing, the ‘Court,’ in fact showed that the learned Justice had ‘Judicially Gravitated’ to the concept ‘Natural Justice.’

ADMINISTRATIVE BEHAVIOR

When the ‘Court’ initially granted; (I) ‘The injunction, it may have been a relief; and (ii) When it judicially recognized their ‘Standing,’ it allowed for ‘Judicial Review Claim.’ They had ‘Challenged’ the ‘Administrative Behavior’ of; (a) ‘Town and Country Planner and Executive Officer; (b) The Development Control Authority (DCA); and (c) The Antigua and Barbuda Airport Authority.’

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

However, appetizing it may have been on stewed ‘Barbuda Red-Footed Tortoise or Fallow Deer,’ the ‘Injunctive Relief,’ never lasted as long as the smallest bottle of ‘Suzie Hot Sauce.’ There may have been sufficient of these wild-life animals for even their sustenance, had they not allowed for the environmental destruction. Incidentally, the ‘DCA Board, knew, or would have been reckless not to know that the ‘Government,’ as ‘Developer’ of land on Barbuda,’ held a ‘Development Permit.’

COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY

The ‘Board Membership’ also knew of its issuance by the very agency they had ‘Collective Responsibility.’ They may also have been reckless not to know, they too, were not adhering to the ‘Rule of Law.’ Using the services of ‘Watt and Associates,’ at the ‘Intermediate- St. Lucia-based level-Eastern Caribbean Court (ECSC),’ argued successfully and persuasively to have the ‘Judicial Decision’ of the ‘Court of First Instance’ reversed.

JUDICIAL REVIEW

When two ‘Barbudan’ residents took the unprecedented stance in causing the ‘Judiciary’ to be visited upon the construction of an airstrip on the ‘Sister Isle-Barbuda,’ both litigants; (I) ‘John Mussington; and (ii) Jacklyn Frank’ applied to ‘High Court of Justice’ for ‘Judicial Review.’ They had raised several issues, including affects the behavior of the ‘Development Control Authority (DCA)’ respecting the construction of a private airstrip, amidst controversies environmental concerns.

DEVELOPER: PRIVATE OR GOVERNMENT

That which was nationally-known, was that a ‘Leasehold on Land’ by the Government to a ‘Private Developer,’ by law, necessitates the issuance to the Government of a ‘Development Permit.’ Such issuance, documentarily placed the nation as the ‘Developer’ of the ‘Privately-Leased Land’ on Barbuda.’ That which these, as a collective body appeared embarrassingly unfamiliar, was the Law.

APEX COURT: PRIVY COUNCIL

When the ‘Appellants caused the institution of appellate proceedings before the ‘Apex Court, the ‘London-based Judicial Committee of the Privy Council against the decisions of; (I) ‘The Court of First Instance; and (ii) Court of Appeal,’ it may have been for the purpose of eliminating behavior that lay persons might be inclined to associate with the instinctive behavior of ‘Kangaroos.’ The Law Lords’ appeared not to have viewed the litigious proceedings as ‘frivolous and vexatious’

KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERTISE

Unlike the apparent insensitive and reckless judicial behavior of the ‘First Instance and Intermediate Courts,’ the ‘UKPC Board,’ neither insulted the intelligence or expertise of the ‘Appellants,’ nor sought to reduce their shared concerns to ‘Figment of Imagination.’ Consciously aware that the former possesses such scientific knowledge and expertise, the ‘Law Lords’ without circumspection or rejection, accepted that which they accepted, ‘Appellant John Mussington,’ so well-articulated.

SCIENTIFIC BACKGROUND

Had it not been so, the ‘Board,’ through ‘Lord Boyd’s Delivery,’ may not have written in the ‘Judgement’ that which the ‘Appellants Affidavits’ guided; In particular, Mr. Mussington’s; (i) ‘Scientific Background;’ (ii) His knowledge of the flora and fauna in the area; (iii) His status as a local resident; and (iv) His experience in conducting ‘Environmental Assessment’ [UKPCA: No. 0116 of 2021: Paragraph 58].

SERIOUS PREDICAMENT

For representations at the ‘London Privy Council,’ the ‘Ministry of Legal Affairs’ may have been gravely challenged by ‘Staff-Competency.’ Thus, it may have been faced with a ‘Serious Predicament.’ Likened to an airspace intrusion, when the military is bound to ‘scramble Migs, the apparent ‘Scrambled Legal Officers’ would have been overshadowed by senior legal practitioners of the retained law firms.

AVAILABILITY-ACCESSIBILITY TO RESOURCE

Clearly, not starved for ‘Resources,’ the ‘Availability of, and ‘Accessibility’ to the ‘Accountant General,’ saw the selection of a ‘5-Member Legal Team.’ The ‘Battery of Attorneys,’ involved two State-retained ‘Law Firms; (i) ‘Marshall and Company,’ instructed by himself; and (ii) ‘Watt and Associates, instructed by ‘Teacher Stern LLM.’ The ‘JCPC Judgment’ has shown two ‘Legal officers’ from the ‘Ministry of Legal Affairs.’

BATTERY OF ATTORNEYS

The ‘Battery of Attorneys’ were to provide legal representation to; (i) ‘The Development Control Authority (DCA); (ii) Antigua and Barbuda Airport Authority (ABBA); and (iii) The Attorney General (AG).’ The legal practitioners for the ‘Attorney General,’ joinder to the proceedings, included; (i) Dr. David Dorset: (ii) Carla Brooks-Harris; and (iii) Rose Ann Kim’ represented the ‘DCA’ and Attorney General’ [UKPC 3: Privy Council Appeal: No. 0116 of 2021].

CRÈME- DE – LA – CREME

While the two legal officers may have been the ‘Ministry’s ‘Crème-de- la- Crème,’ their value to the ‘State-retained attorneys,’ may not necessarily have been of great significance. Given the litigious experience of the ‘State-retained attorneys,’ their value and status, may embarrassingly have been numerical, but still, useful ‘Passers of papers.’ For whatever the reason, the ‘British’ media appeared to have focused and highlighted more of the representation of ‘Dr. David Dorset.’

DISAPPOINTING FUTILITY

This may have been apparent from the ‘Wishy-Washy Arguments,’ advanced before the five distinguished and persistently probing ‘Law Lords,’ appeared not to have been sufficiently convincing. Though valiantly, yet in ‘Disappointing Futility,’ credit shall still be accorded the apparent ‘Lead Counsel, Dr. David Dorset.’ Though instructed by a London-based-attorney, ‘Teacher Stern LLM,’ he appeared to have been the attorney that, deservedly, earned for ‘Watt and Associates,’ shared ‘Retainer’s Fees.’

LAW LORDS: KNOWLEDGE- SHREWDNESS

Litigants have often thought of some regional ‘Justices’ as ‘Threats to Justice.’ Most have reposed great confidence in the ‘London Privy Council (JCPC).’ This expression was never articulated, neither by the ‘Appellants, nor by ‘Dr. David Dorset: Carla Brooks-Harris; Rose Ann Kim; or Hugh Marshall Jr; nor Kema Benjamin.’ The combined ‘State’ and hired Attorneys, were clearly no match for the wits or ‘Knowledge and Shrewdness’ of the ‘British Law Lords.’

RAT-IN-A-TRAP

The, ‘Legal Team,’ combined, appeared to have found their probing persistent and overwhelming. The apparent undaunted attorney may have fared better nibbling at a bit of cheese. The ‘Associate’ of the retained Law Firm ‘Watt and Associates, Dr. David Dorsett,’ appeared to have been caught like a ‘Rat in a ‘Cheese-bated Trap.’ He may not have been mindful being caught in such a trap, a preference to facing the barrage of questions posed by the ‘Law Lords.’

FACTS AND TRUTHS

In endeavoring to elicit ‘Facts and Truths,’ it saw ‘Lord Boyd’ posing questions faster than he could provide no rationally-thought-out answers. The probing appeared to have been one guided by; (a) ‘Compliant with law: (b) Reason; and (c) Conscience.’ Seemingly, the ‘State’s Legal Team’ had argued that the ‘Attorney General’ shall not be considered a ‘proper party to the proceedings.’ The ‘Law Lords’ appeared unimpressed with the advanced arguments.

MOST DAMNING

Among the ‘Most Damning’ of the dicta contained in the ‘UKPC Judgment,’ may have been these; (i) ‘The second ‘EIA’ and accompanying reports had not been disclosed by the ‘Respondents,’ and were not before the Court; and (ii) They have still not been; (a) ‘Disclosed; or (b) Made public; and (c) Were not before the Board on the hearing of this appeal’ [Paragraph 20].

FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION

Consequence upon the need to ‘Protect the Environment,’ the enactment specifies developments for which ‘Environment Impact Assessments’ shall be required. Such includes an airport.’ Given the observation of the ‘Law Lords’ of ‘non-exhibition of the ‘EIA,’ it begs the ‘Fundamental Question; ‘How could a ‘Battery of Attorneys’ appear before the ‘London Privy Council’ to advance arguments without the ‘Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Reports?’

COMMENT AND REPRESENTATIONS

Seemingly, both First Instance and Intermediate Courts,’ had no appreciation for these. The ‘UKPC Appellate Board’ observed. It appears that neither of the ‘Applications’ was publicized, so there was no opportunity for people to ‘Comment’ or make ‘Representations.’ It noted; A village meeting on 2, March 2018, saw application for ‘Judicial Review’ to challenge the vote for the project was refused’ [UKPC: No. 0116 of 2021: Paragraph 52].

RESIDENTIAL INTEREST

The ‘Law Lords,’ carefully addressing the issue of ‘Residential Interest,’ left no doubt in the minds of the ‘Appellants and Respondents,’ as well as ‘Vested Interest’ people. They laid to rest that which ‘His Lordship, Justice Webster’ and the eminent ‘3-member Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court,’ led by the learned ‘Chief Justice, Dame Janice Pereira DBE,’ appeared not to have comprehended or appreciated. None may deny their knowledge of law. Logic dictates that ruling on scientific issues, requires ‘Scientific Judges’ in guiding their understanding of the ‘Environment and Ecology.’

DEVELOPMENT PERMIT

Most vexing in their ‘Claims’ were a purported ‘DCA-issued ‘Development Permit,’ thereby blatantly breached the statutory provisions contained in the ‘Physical Planning Act (PPA).’ That which those holding ‘Public Office,’ appeared never to have given consideration that such office signifies ‘Public Trust.’ Not infrequently, most have become slaves to those that held and wielded power.

AG: PROPERLY JOINED

Ensuring that they understood that the ‘Attorney General’ was ‘Properly Joined’ in the proceedings, the ‘Law Lords’ continue; ‘The holder of the ‘Development Permit’ has clear interest in any remedy that may be imposed, if the ‘Appellants’ are successful.’ The ‘Law Lord’ wrote; ‘The ‘Board is satisfied that the Attorney General as the nominal representative of the government of Antigua and Barbuda is a proper party to the proceedings’ [Paragraph 35].

PRINCIPAL LEGAL ADVISER

That which little ‘Princess Peace Xandria Browne’ could teach; (i) Dr. David Dorset; (ii) Hugh Marshall Jr: (iii) Kema Benjamin: (iv) Carla Brookes-Harris; and (v) Rose Ann Kim,’ is that which is contained in the ‘Constitution Order.’ The provision states; ‘There shall be an Attorney General for Antigua and Barbuda. He shall be the ‘Principal Legal Adviser’ to the Government’ [CO: 1981: Section 82]. In fact, they mall have taken instructions from his office. They may have made a better showing.

CONCLUSION

Undoubtedly, with or without the ‘Environment Impact Assessment Reports,’ the ‘Law Lords’ appeared not to have encountered difficulties in reaching its own ‘Conclusion.’ It was unmistakably stated in the ‘Judgement: ‘It is therefore, open to the Board to reach its own conclusion on the issue of ‘Standing.’ That said, that which might now be cautiously, but respectfully said, is that ‘OECS Courts’ continues to show irrationality and suspect powers of reasoning.’ They have shown a particular consistency with rulings that not only has potential for public officers to flout the ‘Law’ with impunity, but also to financial grievance upon those struggling and living at the edge of poverty.’  ***

 

 

Advertise with the mоѕt vіѕіtеd nеwѕ ѕіtе іn Antigua!
We offer fully customizable and flexible digital marketing packages.
Contact us at [email protected]