Why did Shawn and Grant fail to tell the Judge that they boycotted the electoral reform process?

BASSETERRE, ST. KITTS – There is speculation in St. Kitts and Nevis this weekend whether the Court injunctions would have been granted, if PAM’s Parliamentary Representative, the Hon. Shawn Richards and his party’s political leader, Mr. Lindsay Grant, had been honest and presented the true facts to the judge that they had boycotted the electoral reform process.

High Court Judge Her Ladyship, Madame Justice Rita Joseph-Olivetti in a ruling Friday in which she denied an application by lawyers for the government to set aside the ex-parte order granting leave to apply for judicial review and imposing injunctions, found that both Richards and Grant had failed to disclose to the Court that he and their PAM party refused to attend meetings on electoral reform.

Justice Olivetti noted that Richards and Grant had a duty to make full and frank disclosure of all material facts and a fair presentation when they made their applications before the Court.

“Material facts are facts which it is material for the judge to know when dealing with the application and materiality is to determine by the trial judge. That duty is an onerous one and even covers defences open to a respondent of which the applicant should reasonably be aware,” said Olivetti.

She found that Senior Counsel Mr. Anthony Astaphan’s challenge on this ground is well made out and accepted that Richards and Grant “breached their duty to make full and fair disclosure in that they did not inform the Court of (i) SRO 18/2006 which sets out the electoral reform policy, (ii) that Mr. Richards had been appointed as a member of the Parliamentary Constitutional and Electoral Reform and Boundaries Commission (iii) that he (Richards) and PAM, the political party which he represents had effectively refused to participate in the business of the Boundaries Technical Committee.”

“These were all relevant matters which it was important for the judge (Justice Frances Belle) to know as it might have affected the exercise of his discretion in determining whether to grant relief or not,” said Justice Olivetti.

She added that it was no answer for the learned counsel for Mr. Richards to point to exhibits in Suit 159 and to say that the material was before the judge.

Justice Olivetti stated that lawyers for Mr. Richards were required to go further and specifically draw the judge’s attention to the exhibits and explain their significance if they are not explained in the body of the affidavit.

“This was not done. Further it does not lie in the mouth of an applicant to say that he/she was pressed for time either. Without notice orders are extraordinary orders and the duty on an applicant seeking such relief is properly a strict one,” Judge Olivetti noted.