Final June the Privy Council issued its judgment on a matter that earlier had been adjudicated each by the excessive court docket in Saint Lucia and by the Court docket of Attraction of the Japanese Caribbean Supreme Court docket. The primary concern centered on whether or not the Defamation Act 2013 enacted by the Westminster Parliament was imported into the legislation of Saint Lucia by Article 917A. “Specifically,” because the Privy Council put it, “whether or not the introduction of Part 8 of the 2013 Act of the one publication rule and additional provision for the time of the accrual of a trigger motion means the declare in these proceedings is essentially, if not fully, time barred.”
In March 2017, the appellant Ernest Hilaire had filed a defamation declare towards Allen Chastanet, who defended the declare pleading the provisions of the 2013 UK Defamation Act. Every get together utilized to strike out the opposite’s pleadings. On the listening to to strike out purposes, it was agreed that the difficulty of the importation of the 2013 Act into the legislation of Saint Lucia ought to be tried as a preliminary matter, because the viability of every get together’s pleading trusted the dedication of the difficulty.
The preliminary subject was tried within the excessive court docket by Justice Smith, who in his judgment dated November 2018 held that the 2013 Act is just not relevant in Saint Lucia. The respondent Allen Chastanet appealed to the Court docket of Attraction—earlier than Chief Justice Pereira, Justice Thom and Justice Webster. In its judgment of 16 January 2020, the Court docket of Attraction held that article 917A was not unconstitutional, that the 2013 Act was imported into Saint Lucia legislation and there was no irreconcilable inconsistency between the provisions of the 2013 Act and the provisions of article 917A, besides in Part 8 (3) which was inconsistent with article 2123 of the Civil Code. Nonetheless, the inconsistency was reconciled by reference to the precept of mutatis mutandis as contained in article 917A. The appellant Ernest Hilaire utilized for permission to attraction to the Judicial Council of the Privy Council. Go away was granted by order dated 10 November 2020.
Regardless of its title, the board famous, “the Civil Code was not clearly meant to be an exhaustive assertion of legislation relevant in Saint Lucia to the exclusion of every other authorized devices. A lot was widespread floor between the events on this attraction. Article 917A was first launched into the Civil Code in 1956, when Saint Lucia was nonetheless a British colony, by Act 34 of 1956.This amending Act effected main revisions of the Civil Code. It was enacted by the Governor performing on the recommendation of the then Legislative Council of Saint Lucia pursuant to the ability conferred by the Saint Lucia Legislative Council in 1951. The order established the Legislative Council, which included members nominated by the Governor and members elected in accordance with the legal guidelines as to elections made below the order. The council’s adoption of article 917 in 1956 was a part of a means of assimilation of the Civil Code to the legislation of England.
“Article 917A includes two limbs. The primary limb offers that with impact from the approaching into operation of the article, the legislation of England in the meanwhile associated to contracts, quasi-contracts and torts shall mutatis mutandis prolong to Saint Lucia. The second limb offers that the provisions of the articles 918 to 989 and 991 to 1132 of the Civil Code shall so far as practicable be construed in accordance with the change effected by the primary limb. The second limb additional offers that articles 918 to 989 and 991 to 1132 shall stop to be construed in accordance with the legislation of Decrease Canada or the Coutume de Paris.”
In keeping with the Board: “It’s clear that the second limb doesn’t apply to articles 989A-989S, which have been launched into the Civil Code on the identical time by Act 34 of 1956 and of which articles 989F-989S relate particularly to the legislation of defamation. The brand new articles usually are not sub-articles of the prevailing article 989 however take care of fully separate issues. Article 917A (3) offers that the provisions of the Civil Code or different Saint Lucia statute prevail if there’s a battle with the legislation of England.”
As for Senior Counsel Anthony Astaphan’s submission on behalf of the appellant Ernest Hillaire, that article 917 is inconsistent with varied sections of the Structure of Saint Lucia and subsequently is invalid to the extent of that inconsistency, the Board cited and agreed with the Japanese Caribbean Court docket of Attraction’s Justice Webster when he countered: “I don’t see any cause why an current legislation similar to article 917, which purports to import the legislation of England, ought to turn into ineffective on the attainment of Independence until there was one thing within the Independence laws that expressly or by implication abrogated the article. There is no such thing as a such provision within the Independence laws and, as I’ve discovered, Parliament’s energy to legislate for the importation of legal guidelines made by a international parliament is just not a delegation of its law-making energy. Fairly, it’s an expression of the native sovereign Parliament’s law-making energy topic solely to any inconsistency with any provision of the Structure. It isn’t inconsistent with Part 40 the Structure . . .
“The Board agrees with this reasoning. In 1956, when article 917A was first adopted pursuant to laws made by the Governor, Saint Lucia was nonetheless a colony. Part 17 of the Legislative Council Order 1951 empowered the Governor, with the recommendation and consent of the Legislative Council, to make legal guidelines for the peace, order and good authorities of Saint Lucia—phrases connoting ‘the widest law-making powers applicable to a Sovereign’. It isn’t instructed the enactment contravened the Colonial Legal guidelines Validity Act 1865 which offers that colonial legal guidelines could also be void to the extent that they’re repugnant to the provisions of an Act of Parliament extending to the colony or to orders or rules made below such an Act. It clearly was validly enacted. Certainly, the Board doesn’t perceive the appellant to contend that article 917A was invalid on the time it was adopted.”
Furthermore: “Independence, of itself, doesn’t take away or alter current legal guidelines until the independence laws does so expressly or by essential implication. Thereafter, the persevering with validity of pre-Independence legal guidelines is a matter for regulation by the law-making our bodies of the brand new State.”
After which there’s this, like a lot of the previous, taken from the Privy Council’s judgment revealed in June 2023: “The impact of Part 8 of the 2013 Act in English legislation is subsequently {that a} claimant has one yr from the primary publication of a libel to carry his proceedings, nevertheless many occasions the libel is repeated . . . Mr. Hilaire lodged his declare towards Mr. Chastanet on 20 March 2017. The assertion of declare alleges the libel was contained in a letter despatched by Mr. Chastanet on or about 21 March 2016. A passage of that letter set out within the assertion of declare referred to an earlier letter of 16 December 2015 by which the identical allegations had been made by Mr. Chastanet. The pleading additionally units out, as particulars in assist of innuendo meanings alleged, statements Mr. Chastanet made in an interview on a chat present in November 2015 . . . All of these occurred a couple of yr previous to the graduation of those proceedings.”
The detailed judgment ends with the Board’s enterprise that, “in gentle of the explanations set out, to humbly advise His Majesty that the attraction ought to be dismissed.”
A short while afterward, Ernest Hilaire instructed reporters in Saint Lucia: “My case was filed and pursued below the legislation as it’s recognized to exist in Saint Lucia. Allen Chastanet defended his actions by utilizing the English statute legislation and never the Saint Lucia statute legislation that has at all times been utilized in Saint Lucia. The choice can’t be appealed any additional and as such all that’s left to be carried out is await the recommendation of the lawyer basic on the corrective measures that should be taken to make sure the legislation of Saint Lucia is definite and never left with such ambiguity. I might be consulting my attorneys on the following steps within the listening to.” He was not requested by the reporters and didn’t inform what was the referenced ambiguity.
Since then, there was no official phrase on the matter. At any fee, not from Hilaire or from his former private authorized consultant Leslie Mondesir, now Saint Lucia’s lawyer basic. Nevertheless it appears the Saint Lucia Bar Affiliation has been arguing since December 2023 a couple of draft invoice “concerning importation of the legal guidelines of England and the influence on the Hilaire v Chastanet determination.”
A couple of involved lawyer has privately identified to me that “the very title of the Invoice [Application of United Kingdom Law Bill] is deceptive.” Their shared view is “it seeks significantly to exclude the importation of UK legislation that has shaped a big a part of the Saint Lucian authorized framework for over 44 years.” A significant rivalry by Bar Affiliation members is that “complete legislation reform is required, and the urgency in advancing this invoice indicated by the Bar president is unwarranted and suspect. It additionally creates the impression {that a} specific authorities minister should as rapidly as attainable be appeased—or else.”
One seasoned member of the authorized fraternity sniffed: “It’s as if he desires to warn buddies and opponents, together with each the OECS Court docket of attraction and the Privy Council, that he wields limitless energy.”
By knowledgeable account, a missive to the Bar membership from their president expresses her disagreement with the reasoning of each the Court docket of Attraction and the Privy Council. She additionally doesn’t agree with fellow attorneys who insisted that extra time is required to think about the proposed Invoice. Neither does she acknowledge any want of particular consultancy companies.
Particularly instructive is the next from Mde President: “Everyone knows that one can’t specific an opinion these days with out being labeled, and as of late, shockingly, not expressing an opinion additionally will get you labelled. We’ve got turn into so polarized that the silent majority is being eroded. However it isn’t useless.”
Labelled as what? (It involves thoughts that shortly after the present authorities took workplace in 2021, a pending court docket case introduced by the Customs division towards then opposition MP Ernest Hilaire was withdrawn with out public clarification. Hilaire’s associated remark to the press on the time was that since his get together had been returned to workplace, he now had the ability to take revenge on his enemies. Maybe sensing the influence of his phrases even on seasoned media representatives, he rapidly added: “I’ve the ability to try this—however I gained’t.”)
The Bar president noticed no have to elaborate on what, by her personal discombobulating declaration, “everyone knows.” Her ominous word ended with an attraction to affiliation members to pay excellent Bar dues for 2024, “as a result of a extra seen bar will turn into a extra lively Bar, and a extra lively Bar will turn into a extra revered Bar.”
Revered by whom? That, too, the Bar president cautiously saved to herself!
