CJ waits on UK court ruling on Cayman constitution
(CNS): The Cayman Islands top judge is waiting on a judgment from the UK’s Supreme Court over an application he has made about two sections of the Cayman Island Constitution 2009 dealing with the employment of judges past the age of 65 and the complaints that can be made about members of the judiciary. Chief Justice Anthony Smellie presented a petition in May of this year about section 96(1) and section 106(1) to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for advice and interpretation of these parts of the new constitution. However, the governor applied to block it, saying that the issues should be resolved in the local courts.
Officials from the UK top court said that the petition raised a point of general importance as to whether the Judicial Committee may decline to rule on issues raised in a petition referred to it by Her Majesty under the 1833 Act and, if so, the circumstances in which it would be appropriate for it to do so.
A hearing was held last month where Lord Falconer QC, argued for the chief justice while the governor and the Cayman’s judicial legal services commission were represented by Lord Pannick QC.
The UK’s Supreme Court will now hand down its decision on Thursday 15 November in a judgment to be streamed live on the web.
The chief justice made his application under section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act 33 18 (‘the 1833 Act’) querying the new constitutional position, which deals with the circumstance of when and how an extension of an appointment of a justice of the Grand Court for the Cayman Islands past the retirement age of 65 can be made and the publication of a Complaints Procedure in relation to Cayman judges
In response Cayman Islands Governor Duncan Taylor applied to the Judicial Committee to advise Her Majesty that it “would not be appropriate to give substantive advice on the merits of the two issues, primarily on the basis that these issues should be resolved, at any rate initially, in the Grand Court,” officials from London explained.
The Judicial Committee's decision will be given at 4pm UK Time on Thursday, and will be streamed live at http://news.sky.com/home/supreme-court
Category: Local News
Do hope that's a wig.
CNS, any truth in the rumour that the second part relating to a Complaints Procedure has anything to do with issues arising from the Aina report?
Apparently no one has their hands on the actual pleading filed by the judge so who knows what his issue is? All we know is that this is tied up in a ball over what court should hear it.
Can someone please post the Chief Justice's petition so we can see what this is about. It its not available through the Privy Counsel website. Even when they rule on the choice of forum issue on thursday we may still have no idea what it actually in play substantively. Maybe the CJ could send CNS a copy of what he filed to start out..
Why was so much money spent of two extremely expensive QC’s for what is such a minor issue at a time of national austerity? An FOI request as to the combined cost of this episode would be very interesting.
Then make one.
CJ, While youre at it, what about CHANGES to the Constitution with respect to the POLITICAL IMMUNITIES which allows a Sitting Premier to be UNTOUCHABLE by the SO-CALLED Anti-Corruption Commission and Police and which also DISALLOWS the People of the Country to REMOVE the Premier or any Politician even by Referendum.
Does this mean that the Chf. Justice wants to keep good judges like Magitrate Grace Donalds an affluent judge love by every that s fair and honest? She was forced to leave at the young age of only 60! This is absolute nonsense.She was a great loss to Cayman's society, a jewel.
Or does it mean the Chief Justice wants to stop the Governor's appointment of these old men from the UK past the retirement age of 65 some of them are almost 70 !
So why can't our West Indian judges serve on th bench past the age of 65 the older a judge is the more Wisdom they have. There should be a cut off for them of Age 69 or 70!
Meantime the same applies to the police department, Its time to stop them from hiring Old worn out Bobbies from the UK to replace our still young under 60 RCIP police who are able to do their jobs still but are deprived because of the Colonial rule, abuse and avantage taken of them.
Its time to stop replacing able bodied Caymanian RCIP with Old worn out fogies from the UK. Crimes can not be solved by them no one will share with them any information.
CNS you really need to run legal stories past a lawyer:
The Privy Council is not the Supreme Court. They are different bodies with different membership criteria.
The spelling of judgment in a judicial context is without an "e".
Strictly the Privy Council does not deliver judgments. The Board delivers advisory opinions. But the Privy Council has taken to call them Judgments which is a bit modern and trendy for my liking.
ok Miss know-it-all…
Thank you for clearing that up. Its Pirates Week now – so lets party…
And remember this:
Beer is going to change the world.
I dont know how – but it will…
You must be an out of work lawyer
The spelling of "judgement" without an 'e' is just a convention in British legal contexts, not a rule and this is a BRITISH Overseas Territory. It is standard spelling in the US
How can you give that a 'thumbs down'? It's a statement of fact. and so it's like thumbing down, "Paris is the capital city of France". Or perhaps the 'thumbs down' was because the full stop was missed off the end of the last sentence.
And in what context is the word being used here? Not an American one, buster.
Exactly! So it needs the 'e', Schmuster.
Are you stupiud as well as rude Buster?
They're doing their best with what they have you TWIT! Btw. did I spell TWIT to your liking? Say Wha?
Calling the Privy Council the Supreme Court is pretty serious error.
It may very well be a serious error – in fact, it may very well have been a very serious error. But again, cut the ladies some slack. There are only two of them, they have far too many stories to work on, they most likely lack any legal background/training, they lack money, and are being sued by one of the Muppets (no disrespect to the Muppets). And here you (or someone else) go on about some technical error. Seriously? Just sayin…
Interesting that this flew under the radar for so long. Who exactly is speaking for the people of Cayman in this case? Where is the lawyer for the Attorney General? The constitution doesn't just belong to the judges and the governor.