Tweet
Privy council not opposed to toll
published: Wednesday | October 17, 2007
Barbara Gayle, Staff Reporter
( L - R ) Hylton, James
The United Kingdom Privy Council on Monday heard the appeal by five residents of Portmore, St. Catherine, in which they were claiming that the imposition of a toll for the use of the Portmore Causeway breached their constitutional rights.
While the law lords did not formally hand down their decision, they made it clear that they were going to dismiss the appeal and rule in favour of the Government when they told Solicitor General Michael Hylton Q.C., that he did not have to reply to the oral submissions made by attorney-at-law, Oswald James, on the residents' behalf.
As he had done before the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, Mr. James argued that his clients had a constitutional right to enjoy their property freely and without restrictions, and that the imposition of the toll breached that right. He said the burden was on the Government to show that there was no bette and it had failed to do so.
Mr. Hylton argued in his written submissions that the Constitution did not protect a vague, general right to enjoy property; it protected people from the compulsory acquisition of their property and there had been no compulsory acquisition in this case. He submitted that in any event, there was no restriction on the appellants' ability to enjoy their property since the evidence showed that the Mandela Highway was a free, acceptabl route.
Unusual step
In a somewhat unusual step, the law lords allowed the Solicitor General to use a laptop computer and large monitors in the courtroom to show maps of the Portmore area and traffic studies showing the length (in time and distance) using th routes between Portmore and various areas in Kingston.
The law lords will hand down their formal decision with reasons in a few weeks. Assistant Attorney-General Candice Rochester appeared with Mr. Hylton.
barbara.gayle@gleanerjm.com
published: Wednesday | October 17, 2007
Barbara Gayle, Staff Reporter
( L - R ) Hylton, James
The United Kingdom Privy Council on Monday heard the appeal by five residents of Portmore, St. Catherine, in which they were claiming that the imposition of a toll for the use of the Portmore Causeway breached their constitutional rights.
While the law lords did not formally hand down their decision, they made it clear that they were going to dismiss the appeal and rule in favour of the Government when they told Solicitor General Michael Hylton Q.C., that he did not have to reply to the oral submissions made by attorney-at-law, Oswald James, on the residents' behalf.
As he had done before the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, Mr. James argued that his clients had a constitutional right to enjoy their property freely and without restrictions, and that the imposition of the toll breached that right. He said the burden was on the Government to show that there was no bette and it had failed to do so.
Mr. Hylton argued in his written submissions that the Constitution did not protect a vague, general right to enjoy property; it protected people from the compulsory acquisition of their property and there had been no compulsory acquisition in this case. He submitted that in any event, there was no restriction on the appellants' ability to enjoy their property since the evidence showed that the Mandela Highway was a free, acceptabl route.
Unusual step
In a somewhat unusual step, the law lords allowed the Solicitor General to use a laptop computer and large monitors in the courtroom to show maps of the Portmore area and traffic studies showing the length (in time and distance) using th routes between Portmore and various areas in Kingston.
The law lords will hand down their formal decision with reasons in a few weeks. Assistant Attorney-General Candice Rochester appeared with Mr. Hylton.
barbara.gayle@gleanerjm.com