High court finds state breached candidate’s rights over election appeal delay

The High Court ruled on Friday that the State violated the constitutional rights of a candidate of the fringe Sovereignty Party by delaying the hearing of his urgent election appeal, though the judge awarded no damages or costs.

 

The fledgling Sovereignty Party contested the St Thomas seat in the January 19, 2022 general election.

 

Phillip Nathaniel Catlyn brought the case against the Chief Justice and the Attorney General. He sought constitutional relief over delays in handling an “urgent” appeal he filed in the Court of Appeal in 2022.

 

He also claimed relief over a delay in deciding an interim application by the State in that appeal. The State had sought to strike out his challenge after hearings ended in April 2023.

 

Catlyn cited sections 11(c) and 18(8) of the Constitution for the delay in hearing his “urgent” appeal. For the delay in the decision on the application, he pointed to “a breach of the six-month timeline in Article 84(3)(c) of the Constitution”.

 

In his 24-page judgment, Justice H Patrick Wells declared that Catlyn’s constitutional rights were violated over the delay in hearing the “urgent” appeal. He dismissed the other claim about the six-month timeline for judgments.

 

But the judge also ordered that neither damages nor costs will be payable to Catlyn.

 

He noted that the Court of Appeal gave its written decision on the State’s striking-out application on June 16, 2024.

 

“In that decision, the Court of Appeal dismissed the respondents’ application to strike out the appeal (by the claimant here). On the matter of delay in rendering a decision, the Court of Appeal stated:
“The late delivery of this matter was caused by two factors: firstly, the death of our brother [late Justice of Appeal Jeff] Cumberbatch, which impacted this and several other matters of which he was part of the panel; and secondly, our discovery after a draft judgment had been circulated and approved that there were a number of documents filed with Curia [electronic court filing system] under a number of different suit numbers, only latterly revealed to us by the Court of Appeal Registry. We therefore had to review those documents to ensure that they did not interfere with our disposal.”

 

Catlyn sued over what he called unconstitutional delays by the Court of Appeal in handling his urgent election appeal. He said that on January 17, 2022, the Electoral and Boundaries Commission announced that voters under COVID-19 quarantine would be unable to vote in the January 19, 2022 general election, due to the absence of special voting arrangements.

 

That same day, he filed an urgent judicial review challenging the President’s issuance of election writs without provision for quarantined voters.

 

Justice Cecily Chase refused the application on January 18, 2022, and delivered a written judgment on January 26. Catlyn then filed a notice of appeal two days later, amended it on January 31, and filed a certificate of urgency on February 2.

 

A virtual hearing was listed for June 28, 2022, but he says no hearing link was provided. The State later brought a joint strike-out application, heard over dates from October 12, 2022 to April 26, 2023, when the decision was reserved.

 

Catlyn argued that more than two years after filing, his urgent appeal was still unheard, and more than a year after the last hearing, no decision had come. He said this broke constitutional promises of timely hearings and decisions under Articles 11(c), 18(8) and the six-month rule in Article 84(3)(c). He sought declarations of these breaches, vindicatory damages, and further relief.

 

The State argued that after Catlyn appealed Justice Chase’s decision, a case management teleconference was set for June 28, 2022, but it did not happen.

 

Due to a technical issue, the link was not sent. On October 11, 2022, the State filed a joint application to strike out the notice of appeal.

 

The strike-out application was heard on October 12, 2022, January 19, 2023 and April 26, 2023. The Court of Appeal gave its decision on June 16, 2024. The panel was the then Chief Justice Patterson Cheltenham, and Justices of Appeal Cumberbatch and Margaret Reifer.

 

The delay in the written decision on the strike-out application came from the death of Justice Cumberbatch, which affected this and other cases he sat on, and issues with documents in the Curia system that might have been misfiled, which the Court of Appeal reviewed to see if they affected the strike-out.

 

The defendants’ evidence showed that Appeal No CVA0006/2022 had not been listed for hearing as of when they filed their evidence, following the strike-out decision.

 

Catlyn was represented by attorney Lalu Hanuman, while Deputy Solicitor General Marsha Lougheed and attorney-at-law Carolyn Ward appeared for the Chief Justice and the Attorney General.

(EJ)