Archive for December, 2013
Response to C4C
We wholeheartedly agree with the C4C suggestion that anational sustainable development and infrastructure plan should be developed. This is essential along with other ‘green’ policies aimed at addressing waste management, the Dump, renewable energy, climate change preparedness and the many other environmental issues the Islands currently face. In fact, Sustainable Cayman has been established as a long-term advocacy group for these very issues.
However, while these issues are related to the National Conservation Bill, they belong in new and separate legislation and policies. To be clear: "Conservation" is the protection of animals, plants, and natural resources. Waste management and recycling are environmental issues, however they should not be included in a Conservation law. The National Conservation Bill is the beginning of an improved environmental legislative framework, not an all-encompassing fix for every issue.
The mechanisms which the law introduces are flexible, foundational and should be compatible with other sustainable development policies that will hopefully be developed in the future. The National Conservation Bill is aimed at protecting Cayman’s unique biodiversity. It is also an important tool to make continued physical development in the Cayman Islands more sustainable. But it is only the first step.
Based on current public discussions, there is no reason to delay the passage of the Bill. All concerns that we, at Sustainable Cayman, have heard about the Bill over the last month stem from misinformation and misunderstanding about the actual content of the Law and can, and indeed have been, addressed and satisfied repeatedly by Government officials. In cases where there is some ambiguity, the Government has pledged to amend wording to accommodate those concerns.
There are few pieces of legislation where the drafting process has been so transparent and collaborative. The National Conservation Bill has been developed over the last 10 years with numerous rounds of intensive public consultation throughout this period of time. Residents of all districts, developers, landowners, quarry operators, related government departments, the tourism sector and industry and professional groups have all had the opportunity to give input on the Bill on numerous occasions.
The Government has amended the Bill three times to address valid concerns raised throughout these consultation processes. Consequently, the National Conservation Bill 2013 is a carefully designed piece of legislation which is uniquely tailored to the particular intricacies of Cayman’s economy and culture, balancing conservation and need for continued physical development of the islands.
As one signature to our Statement of Support for the NCB wrote: No other law has been more reviewed and fine tuned than this one. It's time to get on with it now!
Addressing the 5 points raised in C4C’s letter:
1. We would like to clarify that there IS a representative of the Minister for the Environment in the form of the Chief Officer of the Ministry of the Environment on the Council. This representative is joined by other relevant civil servants (Planning, Environment, Agriculture), along with 7 individuals nominated by Cabinet and one representative of the National Trust.
The Council is largely an advisory body to Cabinet. All significant actions under the NCL require both public consultation and Cabinet approval. For example, every recommendation for a Protected Area designation must go out for public consultation and then gain Cabinet approval (only Crown land can be considered for Protected Area designation and not private land). The same process must be followed for every species management plan. Further, it is Cabinet that is charged with the power to make Regulations under the Law.
In terms of the Councils participation in the planning approval process, their role is only advisory (their input must be taken in toconsideration). The only exception being the rare planning decisions that will impact Crown owned Protected Areas or areas that have been designated Critical Habitats, where the Council has the power to direct the originating agency to approve or refuse.
2. The appropriate fine for a particular offence under the NCL will be determined by the Courts and will depend on the severity of the crime. To take an example from the current Marine Conservation Law which has the same maximum penalty of $500,000, a conch poacher who took 40 conchs and 10 lobsters out of season was recently fined $2,400. On the other hand, a visiting mega yacht that deliberately flouted local requirements and destroyed a large section of reef in the West Bay Marine Park was charged CI$150k.
3. a) Regarding the perception of increased bureaucracy, decision-making authority over planning matters will remain as it currently is with the Central Planning Authority, Development and Control Board in the Sister Islands and with Cabinet for Coastal Works applications. For planning applications that will negatively impact the natural environment, the Council will simply have an advisory role. Their recommendations to these decision-making bodies must be taken in to consideration but is not binding (except for Protected Areas and Critical Habitats).
Many of the requirements of the NCL already take place under a ‘gentleman’s’ agreement’ between respective Government agencies and the Department of Environment. The NCL simply makes that process legally binding and creates a level playing field for all those engaging in the Planning Approval process. The NCL will not significantly impact Government’s budget. An Environmental Protection Fund was established years ago for conservation purposes. The Fund currently generates around CI$5 million per year.
3. b) With regards to discouraging development, we would like to quote CASE (The Society of Cayman Architects, Surveyors and Engineers): The NCL “will eliminate the current practice of addressing the environmental concerns of a proposed major development on an ad-hoc basis without clear requirements or guidelines, which is a welcome relief to investors who will now know upfront what the requirements are for an environmental impact assessment. Many international investors are accustomed to considering environmental aspects of a major development prior to the planning application process.”
Far from being a deterrent to potential investors, the level playing field created by the NCL will appeal to international developers and investors who have a long-term interest in the Cayman Islands.
For smaller developments, such as a dock or single family home, the NCL will have little to no impact.
4. This point, which states that properties adjacent to protected areas are at risk of compulsory acquisition, seems to miss the point that the concept of buffer zones has been completely removed in the 2013 version of the Bill. Consequently, there is nothing in the current bill which will limit activity on private land surrounding protected areas. Further, there is NO compulsory land acquisition in the National Conservation Bill.
In the case of environmentally important land, those who wish to retain ownership of their land or develop it, still have that option. However, the option to sell or lease private environmentally significant land to the Government for conservation purposes introduced by the Bill, opens new economic opportunities for people who do wish to sell or lease their land. There is nothing in the National Conservation Bill which will force a landowner to sell their land to the Government. Participation by private landowners is encouraged, but purely voluntary.
5. We have already addressed this point above. Waste management and recycling are critical environmental issues, however they should not be included in a "Conservation" law.
Dart brings in ‘bigwig’
(CNS): Having asked to be joined in the defence of the legal action taken by four ladies regarding the closure of the West Bay Road to facilitate the development of a beachfront resort by Dart Realty Cayman Limited, the developer appeared to spare no expense in the fight this week when they instructed the former attorney general of England and Wales. Peter Henry Goldsmith, Baron Goldsmith, PC, QC, who now works for the New York-based firm Debevoise & Plimptonand is reputed to earn over one million pounds per year, advocated for Dart on Tuesday before Justice Alex Henderson. He argued that the women did not have a case as the rights they said they had lost were not private but public rights.
Baron Goldsmith suggested that the right of way people had to the road, and in turn beach access, were general broad public rights that everyone shared and therefore bringing the action under the Bill of Rights was wrong because that was meant to deal with infringements of private rights. He argued that the closure was lawful and therefore, as part of the gazetted closure, all public rights of way ceased.
Goldsmith suggested that if there were any questions at all about the closure, the present suit itself was the wrong kind of action because the women should have applied for judicial review within three months of the signing of the NRA agreement in December 2011 in accordance with the court rules. Acknowledging changes in the constitution which appear to increase that timeframe to twelve months, he said that either way the outcome was that the women were out of time and their claims were “misconceived”.
The leading attorney said there were very good reasons in law for placing timelines on such cases, as illustrated by the massive financial investment and the work already undertaken by his client.
The Dart lawyer agreed with the government's QC, Richard Keen, who had also argued the same point that the plaintiffs were “adventitious” when they had adopted the date of the gazetting of the road as the point where the timelines should begin. He argued that government had notified the people of its intention to enter into an agreement with Dart, part of which included the road closure, as far back as June 2011.
Despite arguments that the details of this agreement were madebehind closed doors and that the full deal was not revealed until after the closure, Baron Goldsmith said the women were well aware of the intended road closure from the start and had been part of the public opposition to it and had gone on television voicing their objections.
Given the timeline’s importance to the case, he said, the suit was a “manifest abuse of process” as the women had attempted to circumvent a judicial review, which would have been the correct route. He said his clients had undertaken very expensive and substantial work on the basis of the agreement signed with the NRA and government in December 2011, and it was clear that any legal questions could not be allowed to meander for any length of time.
The closure, he argued, was perfectly lawful and was made by political leaders giving due consideration for all of the facts and socio-economic as well as environmental issues. He pointed to speeches delivered by the former premier, McKeeva Bush, in support of the Dart deal. He also referred to the efforts Dart is making to maintain pedestrian access to the beaches in the area and the provision of the public park.
Baron Goldsmith noted at the beginning of his submissions that only part of the road which is earmarked to be closed has been gazetted, noting that the developer was undertaking the closure in two parts and, when it happens, the closure of the remaining stretch will also be done under the same roads law.
However, questions remain about the closure of the remaining stretch of road, which for all intents and purposes is now a cul-de-sac and no longer provides through access. The Cayman government remains in negotiations with Dart about the NRA agreement as it seeks to extract value for money for the public purse after questions were raised about the deal by independent consultants.
The PPM administration has also publicly stated that it is pressing to change parts of the deal which it has found “unacceptable”, not least the 50% concession Dart was given on room tax in the deal for all of its tourist accommodation which it owns,acquires, builds or renovates in the next thirty years for up to ten years from that accommodation opening.
The case brought by Alice Mae Coe, Annie Multon, Ezmie Smith and Betty Ebanks on behalf of a wider activist group continues in Court 4 Wednesday at 10am when local attorney Anthony Akiwumi, instructed by Irwin Banks is expected to reply to the defence arguments.
Following an extensive agreement of certain facts, the lawyers will not be calling live witness and will leave the judge to decide the case based on the written submissions and evidence, as well as the arguments the lawyers made on their feet during the course of the trial this week.
International Human Rights Day 2013
10 December is the anniversary of the adoption by the United Nations (UN) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The UDHR sets out a certain set of rights that are the basic and minimum set of human rights for all citizens. Setting aside a day to commemorate, educate, and reflect on the principles that form the UDHR means celebrating the rights we exercise every day in the Cayman Islands, and acknowledging that enjoying those rights carries with it the responsibility of promoting these rights for all people.
Rights and freedoms that many of us take for granted – such as the right to an education, the freedom to practice our chosen religion, or the freedom of expression – are not equally available to persons in other countries as they are in the Cayman Islands.
As the celebration today is truly international in scope, many individuals and communities across the globe will be commemorating 10 December, and pledging a commitment to observe and improve human rights wherever possible. This year the Human Rights Commission joins the UDHR in encouraging the Government, civil society, communities, families and individuals to share your voice and celebrate the freedom of expression!
Freedom of expression is a cornerstone of democratic rights and freedoms. In its very first session in 1946, before any human rights declarations or treaties had been adopted, the UN General Assembly adopted resolution 59(I) stating “Freedom of information is a fundamental human right and … the touchstone of all the freedoms to which the United Nations is consecrated.”
At an individual level, freedom of expression is a key to the development, dignity and fulfilment of every person. At a national level, freedom of expression is a necessary instrument for effective, efficient, and democratic governance as well socio-economic progress. Through this fundamental freedom people have the opportunity to gain an understanding of their surroundings and the wider world by exchanging ideas and information freely with others.
Freedom of expression is essential to the protection of democracy by ensuring public participation in decision-making. Individuals cannot exercise their right to vote effectively or take part in public decision-making if they do not have free access to information and ideas as well as given the ability to express their views freely. Freedom of expression is thus not only important for individual dignity but also to participation, accountability and democracy.
On this day, the Human Rights Commission implores each person to reflect on the value of our freedom of expression as enshrined in the Bill of Rights, Freedoms, and Responsibilities and share your voice in the strive to promote, protect, and preserve human rights.
C4C members will support conservation law
(CNS): Despite the position taken by the advocacy group which endorsed them, all three of the Coalition for Cayman members have confirmed their backing for the National Conservation Law, which will be debated in the Legislative Assembly today, Wednesday 11 December. While Tara Rivers, the education and employment minister, was always bound by the collective responsibility and obligated to support the law once Cabinet gave it the nod, the two back-bench members, Roy McTaggart and Winston Connolly, are free to vote however they chose, but both men have said they will be voting 'yes'.
The group that endorsed these candidates on the campaign trail in pursuit of a government of non-party aligned members released a damning attack on the law this week, stating that it would limit development instead of facilitating it and asking for yet another year of consultation.
Following the advocacy group’s public opposition to the law that they are all supporting, CNS asked the C4C-backed MLAs how they felt about the position taken by the group.
Rivers said that as a firm believer in democracy she respected C4C’s democratic right to express their position on this or any other matter it deemed important. “Likewise, I’m confident that C4C will continue to respect my position as an independently elected representative and member of Cabinet,” she added ahead of the debate.
Roy McTaggart, who is not forced to support the law, also confirmed his backing and indicated that the advocacy group’s position would not influence him. Often seen as the political leader of the group, the chair of the Public Accounts Committee said he had no concerns about the position that C4C had taken.
“As an independent candidate, I campaigned in support of the Conservation Law and will be voting in favour of it when it is put to a vote in the LA,” he stated.
Meanwhile, Winston Connolly went further and distanced himself from the advocacy group, stating that he was not a member of it.
“For the record, I have never been a C4C member, nor have I sat on their executive or had anything to do with their decision making,” he said. “They have not had any bearing on my decision making at any time, nor have I had any say in what they do. I was and remain endorsed by them with no conditions other than to vote with my conscience and be honest in my deliberations and actions."
In light of the declared intention of the public advocacy group, which is to promote independent leadership – “free of political ties" – that can be trusted to always do what’s best for the people, CNS has asked the group if it intends to continue backing the three members it endorsed, given that they are at odds over this critical piece of legislation, but C4C has not yet responded to questions.
New regulator for auditors appointed
(CNS Business): The body responsible for overseeing inspections of Cayman-based firms that audit market-traded companies has appointed its first managing director. Donald Cockburn will manage the daily activities of the Auditors Oversight Authority (AOA) and facilitate discussions with his foreign counterparts in order to have Cayman-based auditors assessed and confirmed as having equivalent quality assurance systems to those of other countries. This oversight body lines up with the requirements under the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (AIFMD) that came into effect in July, and gaining recognition from EU member states will be very important to the offshore sector. Read more on CNS Business
Reparations could fund new regional development
(CNS): Caribbean leaders have identified a list of socio-economic problems in the region which they say are a direct result of the legacy of slavery, and reparations from the European nations enriched by the salve trade could help shape a new development agenda. A CARICOM commission established to deal with the issue of reparations met in Jamaica Tuesday to advance discussions and formulate a plan to claim financial compensation from the former slave owning states. Chair Professor Sir Hilary Beckles said Caribbean societies were built on the transatlantic slave trade and are uniquely placed to advance the "cause of truth, justice, and reconciliation within the context of reparatory justice" to make amends for the continuing legacy of that crime.
The Commission has called upon the former slave-owning nations of Europe, mainly Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Denmark, to engage Caribbean governments in reparatory dialogue to address the living legacies of the slave trade. Encouraging CARICOM heads of government to push for talks with the former slave-owning countries enriched by the crime, the commission said reparations could help eradicate the legacy of slavery that still subverts the development efforts in the Caribbean.
The money would be earmarked for six primary socio-economic challenges which Beckles said are a direct result of slavery. From cultural deprivation and psychological trauma to scientific and technological backwardness, the Caribbean is still feeling the impact of the salve trade, Beckles added. In a statement at a press conference held at the UWI, he said that at the end of the colonial period the British left the African descended population, and survivors of the native genocide, in a state of general illiteracy.
“Some 70 percent of these persons were functionally illiterate at the onset of the Independence era. Widespread illiteracy continues to plague Caribbean societies and accounts for significant parts of their development challenges,” he said, as education was identified as one of the six areas that would be boosted by reparations.
.
He spoke too about the criminalization and shattering of both African culture and identity in the region.
“Africans were deculturalized and today remain impoverished in respect or cultural legitimacy and supportive appropriate institutional arrangements,” Beckles said. “Contemporary manifestations of these include low ethnic self-esteem; the devaluation of black identity; broken structures and diminished family values; delegitimization of African derived religion and cultural practices, and disconnection from ancestral roots and culture.”
He said that for over 400 years Africans were classified in law as non-human, chattel, property and real estate.
“They were denied recognition as members of the human family by laws and practices derived from theparliaments and policies of Europe. This history has inflicted massive psychological damage upon African descendants and is evident daily in social life,” he added, emphasizing the reasons for seeking reparations.
Beckles also pointed to the health problems suffered by the African descendants of slaves in the Caribbean who now have the highest incidence in the world of chronic diseases in the form of hypertension and type two diabetes. He said this was, “a direct result of their nutritional exposure, endemic inhumane physical and emotional brutalization and other aspects of the stress experience of slavery and post slavery apartheid.”
The quest for reparations by leaders of Caribbean nations remains a controversial issue. On his recent trip to the region the UK's overseas territories minister, Mark Simmonds, who also has responsibility for the UK’s relationship with the Caribbean, said that Europe was not in a financial position to compensate the region for human atrocities that were perpetrated two centuries ago.
Nevertheless, the leaders continue to press the issue and have also engaged in talks with the specialist UK law firm Leigh Day, which was able to win a major settlement from the British government for thousands of Kenyan clients tortured by the colonial masters during the Mau-Mau rebellion of the 1950s.
CASE backs conservation law
(CNS): On the eve of the anticipated debate in the Legislative Assembly Wednesday on the long awaited and much discussed National Conservation Law, the Society of Cayman Architects, Surveyors and Engineers (CASE) has offered its backing to the law and is urging its passage to offer certainty for developers. Despite the scare-mongering in recent weeks that the law will put an end to development in the Cayman Islands, the professional body whose members are entirely dependent on development have offered their support, with the majority agreeing that the bill is an “essential piece of legislation that needs to be enacted as soon as possible”.
In a statement released to the press on Tuesday, CASE said that it “supports the immediate adoption of the 2013 National Conservation Law as we recognise, and endorse efforts to conserve unique, local, endemic and indigenous features, species and habitats of the Cayman Islands.”
The body’s executive council went on to advise its members to become actively involved in what it said would be many opportunities created by the National Conservation Law. Far from wringing their hands at the imminent collapse of the economy as we know it, as has been advocated in some quarters, the group of architects, surveyors and engineers said the proposed law will bring much more certainty to the steps relating to development.
“It will eliminate the current practice of addressing the environmental concerns of a proposed major development on an ad-hoc basis without clear requirements or guidelines, which is a welcome relief to investors who will now know upfront what the requirements are for an environmental impact assessment,” CASE said. “Many international investors are accustomed to considering environmental aspects of a major development prior to the planning application process.”
This was a point made on several occasions over the last few weeks by the director of the Department of Environment, Gina Ebanks-Petrie. She explained that modern developers and contractors anticipate the need for the environment to be taken into consideration when they make plans to begin a project. In the current environment there are no certainties and the Central Planning Authority has directed investors and developers on an ad hoc basis regarding environmental impact assessments, which has created an uneven playing field.
The law has its critics on both sides of the debate, with many believing it is not sufficient to protect the critical situation for many of the country's endemic species, while others are still advocating against it because they believe it goes too far — an impasse has prevented legislation from being passed for the last decade. However, CASE noted that the majority of the members who responded to its survey on the law agreed with it and recognized that while it is not perfect, it is appropriate in the local context.
“The new National Conservation Law is a first step towards a sustainable development policy for the Cayman Islands that if successfully implemented, will hopefully preserve the variety and richness of our natural environment for future generations,” the group stated.
Pointing to the need for the long overdue update to the Cayman Islands Development Plan and supporting regulations to support the NCL, CASE said this, more than any other law, would ensure sustainable development in the Cayman Islands for current and future generations.
Recognising that some have viewed the NCL with uncertainty in recent weeks, the society said there was sufficient leeway in the legislation to amend aspects of the law if it became apparent that some areas needed to be strengthened or relaxed, after a suitable period of monitoring and review.
CASE also pointed to the benefits to be gained from collaboration between the National Conservation Council, design professionals and developers and related professional to maximize the economic and environmental benefits of the National Conservation Law and urged Cabinet to include representatives from the sector in its quota of appointed Conservation Council members.
Future LA meeting dates now revealed
(CNS): The PPM government has set a timetable for the meetings of the Legislative Assembly for the remainder of the 2013-2014 session for the first time in many years. In the recent past meetings have been on an ad hoc basis, usually at the direction of the premier and before that the leader of government business. Members were often given very short notice, while the press and by extension the public were rarely formally informed at all and when they were, not until the eve of a meeting. However, Premier Alden McLaughlin had promised members that he would establish a timetable. The House resumes tomorrow for the remainder of the meeting that began in October and the next meeting will be in the New Year.
Meeting dates for the remainder of the current Session are 29 January, 2014, and then 12 March. Following the closure of the March meeting the Legislative Assembly will move into a new session for 2014/15 and that will open with the budget meeting on 2 May.
"We have been working with the Legislative Assembly and Madam Speaker Hon. Juliana O’Connor-Connolly to develop a calendar so that all members of the Legislative Assembly can know when their presence will be required in the Honourable House,” McLaughlin said in a release from his office. “It is only fair that everyone be made aware so that they can plan and schedule their time with constituents and families.”
The sitting tomorrow is scheduled to open at 10am and will cover a number of bills, including the long awaited and much anticipated National Conservation Law.
Also on the order paper for the remainder of this meeting is the equally anticipated Standards in Public Life Bill, which will introduce a new regulatory and enforceable regime for governing the interests and conduct, not just of politicians but all public servants.
Other legislative changes include amendments to the Notaries Public law and the Insurance law but a full agenda for the remainder of this meeting has not yet been made public.
Car torched in West Bay
(CNS): A car parked in a West Bay road was set on fire Monday night in what police believe was an act of arson. An RCIPS spokesperson said that West Bay detectives are now investigating the blaze after two suspects were seen by witnesses fleeing the scene of the burning vehicle. Police and fire services attended the scene having received a report about the blaze in Flute Lane, off West Church Street, at about 9:25pm in which a Chrysler PT Cruiser, was destroyed. Enquiries at the location suggest that two people were seen running away at the time of the fire but police have no descriptions of the people. Anyone who was in the area at the relevant time, and saw or heard anything suspicious, is asked to contact West Bay police station on 949-3999, the RCIPS tip line 949-7777 or Crime Stoppers 800-8477(TIPS).
Closure was ‘fait accompli’
(CNS): Local defence attorney Anthony Akiwumi argued that the closure of the West Bay Road was an unconstitutional ‘fait accompli’ which gave the people of the Cayman Islands no right of appeal and lacked transparency. Presenting the case on behalf of the four West Bay ladies who have challenged the controversial closure in the courts, Akiwumi pointed to the right of way that people have enjoyed on the road for more than one hundred years, the petition signed by more than 4,000 residents, as well as the cultural significance of the road. But the main thrust of his submissions before Justice Alex Henderson Monday was simply that the closure was unlawful.
Representing Alice Mae Coe, Annie Multon, Ezmie Smith and Betty Ebanks in their suit against the governor, the minister, the attorney general, the NRA and, at its request, Dart Realty Cayman Ltd, Akiwumi opened his clients' case to a packed courtroom. Facing an army of lawyers and QCs on the defence benches, Akiwumi argued that the way government had gone about the closure of the West Bay Road was unlawful and should not have happened behind closed doors.
He suggested that many of the issues surrounding the case regarding the jurisdiction of the court, time lines and other arguments from the defence were nothing more than a distraction. The lawyer asked the judge to answer the question of whether or not the process was lawful because if it was lawful, his case was over. Akiwumi argued forcefully, however, that the process was not as it was not compatible with the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
He pointed out that there was no way for the people to appeal the decision or file objections as the details of the agreement were always kept from the public eye and nothing was officially published until after the road was gazetted on 13 March, contravening section 18 of the BoR.
“No one really knew until after the fact,” he told the court. “The residents of West Bay and of the island were presented with a fait accompli.”
Akiwumi said that the closure of the road via the roads law was unconstitutional because it did not comply with the section of the constitution which demands government acts in a reasonable and transparent way. It also undermined long held easement and access rights. He argued that the closure of the road under the roads law may have given possession to Dart but it did not take away the people’s right of access.
Arguing over the question of jurisdiction, Akiwumi said the trigger date was not the original signing of the ForCayman Investment alliance agreement in December 2011 but the order to gazette the closure of the road. He said the ladies filed their suit as soon as they were aware that government was intending to discuss that order in Cabinet and it was that order which they could then oppose in a court of law.
Although he focused on the legality question and the lack of transparency regarding the process, Akiwumi did not neglect the emotional elements of the case and the significance of the West Bay Road as an historical through route to George Town for over a century. He also addressed the allegations regarding his clients that they were nothing more than a nuisance.
“That is not true,” he said, adding that the four women were representing a wider genuine concern in the community about the way the road was closed.
Akiwumi said the case had nothing to do with objecting to development but it was about the road as well as the access it provides to the beach. He told the court that the strip of road which is now inaccessible was once the first point along the West Bay Road where Cayman’s famous Seven Mile Beach could be seen and it was now impossible to see Seven Mile Beach from any road.
“Tourists wonder where it is,” he said.
The attorney who has submitted all of the evidence relating to the case in writing closed his opening summary at around 3:30pm on Monday afternoon and gave way to the first of the QCs on the defence side.
Richard Keen QC, who is representing the government and the NRA, began the defence by suggesting the process was transparent and that it was closed correctly and lawfully under the roads law, which removed any public accessthat a road would afford. The lawyer argued that this was a political decision lawfully made and lawfully executed. He also spent time arguing that the trigger point for any action was not the gazetting of the road but when the agreement was signed in December 2011, making the suit out of time.
Keen will continue his presentations in Court 4 Tuesday during the trial, which is open to the public and scheduled to run throughout this week.