Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court
  • About Us
    • Brief History of the Court
    • Court Overview
    • Meet the Chief Justice
    • Past Chief Justices
      • Sir Hugh Rawlins
      • Sir Brian George Keith Alleyne
      • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Adrian Saunders
      • Hon. Sir Charles Michael Dennis Byron
      • Rt. Hon. Sir Vincent Floissac
      • Honourable Sir Lascelles Lister Robotham
      • More..
        • Hon. Neville Algernon Berridge
        • Sir Neville Peterkin
        • Sir Maurice Herbert Davis
        • Justice P. Cecil Lewis
        • Sir Allen Montgomery Lewis
    • Judicial Officers
      • Justices of Appeal
        • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Davidson Kelvin Baptiste
        • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Mario Michel
        • Her Ladyship, the Hon. Justice Gertel Thom
        • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Paul Anthony Webster [Ag.]
        • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Gerard Farara, KC
        • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Trevor Ward, KC
      • High Court Judges
      • Masters
    • Court of Appeal Registry
    • Court Connected Mediation
      • Court-Connected Mediation Practice Direction Forms
      • Mediation Publications
    • More…
      • Career Opportunities
      • Legal Internship
      • Transcript Requests
      • Directory
  • Judgments
    • Privy Council
    • Caribbean Court of Justice
    • Court Of Appeal Judgments
    • High Court Judgments
    • Digests of Decisions
    • Country
      • Anguilla
      • Antigua & Barbuda
      • Grenada
      • Montserrat
      • Saint Kitts and Nevis
      • Saint lucia
      • Saint Vincent & The Grenadines
      • Territory of the Virgin Islands
    • Year
      • 1972 – 1990
        • 1972
        • 1973
        • 1975
        • 1987
        • 1989
        • 1990
      • 1991 – 2000
        • 1991
        • 1992
        • 1993
        • 1994
        • 1995
        • 1996
        • 1997
        • 1998
        • 1999
        • 2000
      • 2001 – 2010
        • 2001
        • 2002
        • 2003
        • 2004
        • 2005
        • 2006
        • 2007
        • 2008
        • 2009
        • 2010
      • 2011 – 2019
        • 2011
        • 2012
        • 2013
        • 2014
        • 2015
        • 2016
        • 2017
        • 2018
        • 2019
    • Judgment Focus
  • Sittings & Notices
    • Schedule of Sittings
    • Court of Appeal Sittings
    • Chamber Hearing (Appeals)
    • Case Management (Appeals)
    • High Court Sittings
    • Status Hearings
    • Special Sittings
    • Notices
  • Court Procedures & Rules
    • ECSC Court of Appeal Rules
    • ECSC (Sittings of the Court) Rules, 2014
    • Civil Procedure Rules [WEB]
    • ECSC Civil Procedure Rules
      • Civil Procedure Rules 2000 [Amendments to Nov 2015]
      • Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2014
      • ECSC Civil Procedure (Amendment) (No.2) Rules
      • Civil Procedure Rules 2000 [Amendments to May 2014]
      • Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2013
      • Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2011
    • ECSC Criminal Procedure Rules
      • Criminal Procedure Rules SI No. 22 of 2015
    • ECSC Sentencing Guidelines
    • Non Contentious Probate Rules and Administration of Estates
    • Family Proceedings Rules
    • More..
      • Election Petition Rules
      • Legal Profession Disciplinary Procedure Rules (St. Lucia)
      • Code Of Judicial Conduct
      • Court Forms
        • Introduction of E-Filing
        • BVI Commercial Division E-Filing
        • Court-Connected Mediation Practice Direction Forms
      • Court Proceedings Fees
      • SILK Application Procedure
      • Practice Directions
      • Practice Notes
      • Video Conferencing Protocols
  • News & Publications
    • ECSC Media Gallery
    • Annual Reports
    • Appointments
    • Press Releases
    • Papers & Presentation
      • Opening of the Law Year Addresses
    • Tributes
  • E-Litigation
    • E-Litigation Portal
    • E-Litigation Instructional Videos
    • ECSC E-Litigation Portal User Information
    • Electronic Litigation Filing and Service Procedure Rules
    • Notices of Commencement
    • E-Litigation Publications
  • J.E.I
    • JEI History
    • Structure of JEI
    • JEI Chairman
    • Mandate, Objectives, Standards
    • Programmes Archive
      • Conferences
      • Programmes & Projects
      • Symposiums
      • Training
      • Workshops
    • Upcoming Activities
more
    • About Us
    • Meet the Chief Justice
    • Civil Procedure Rules
    • Mediation
    • Careers
  • Contact
  • Saved for Later
 Home  E-Litigation Portal
  •  Court Procedures And Rules
    • Civil Procedure Rules
    • Court Forms
    • Election Petition Rules
    • Practice Directions
  •  Judgments
    •  All
    •  Court of Appeal
    •  High Court
    •  Digest of Decisions
  •  Sittings
    •  All
    •  Court of Appeal
    •  High Court
  • Sign In
    
    Minimize Search Window
    •       {{item.title}} Filter By Category {{SelectedFilters.length}}x Categories 
    •       {{item.title}} {{selectedCountries.length}}x Countries Country 
    •       {{item.title}} Filter By Year {{selectedOptions.length}}x Options 
    
    Sorry can't find what you're looking for try adjusting your search terms
    Appeal
    {{doc._source.post_title}}
    Page {{indexVM.page}} of {{indexVM.pageCount}}
    pdf
    Home » Judgments » High Court Judgments » The Hon. Gaston Browne et al v The Constituencies Boundaries Commission et al

    The Hon. Gaston Browne et al v The Constituencies Boundaries Commission et al

    1
    THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT
    ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA
    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
    CLAIM NO: ANUHCV2013/0405
    IN THE MATTER OF
    THE CONSTITUENCIES BOUNDAIRES COMMISSION
    and
    IN THE MATTER OF PURPORTED RECOMMENDATIONS AND
    “CONSULTATIONS”
    OF THE CONSTITUENCIES BOUNDARIES COMMISSION
    and
    IN THE MATTER OF
    SECTIONS 40 AND 64 OF THE CONSTITUTION ORDER 1981
    OF ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA
    and
    IN THE MATTER OF THE
    CONSTITUENCIES BOUNDARIES COMMISSION GUIDANCE ACT 10/2012
    and
    IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR DECLARATORY
    INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER RELIEF BY THE APPLICANTS,
    THE HON. GASTON BROWNE, THE HON. LESTER BIRD, THE HON. ASOT MICHAEL
    EISEN BAPTISTE, PAULET HINKSON
    UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 110 OF THE ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA
    CONSTITUTION ORDER 1981 AND/OR THE GENERAL LAW
    BETWEEN:
    THE HON. GASTON BROWNE, LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION
    THE HON. LESTER B, BIRD, THE HON. ASOT A. MICHAEL
    MR. EISEN BAPTISTE, MS. PAULET HINKSON
    Claimants/Applicants
    and
    THE CONSTITUENCIES BOUNDARIES COMMISSION
    First Respondent
    2
    and
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA
    Second Respondent
    and
    THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
    Third Respondent
    and
    THE PRIME MINISTER OF ANTIGUA AND BABRUDA
    Fourth Respondent
    and
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR AND ON BEHALF OF
    HER EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR GENERAL
    Fifth Respondent
    Appearances:
    Mr. Anthony Astaphan SC, Mr John Fuller and Ms Samantha Marshall for the Claimants/Applicants.
    Mr. Douglas Mendes SC and Mr. M. Quamina for the First and Third Respondents

    Mr Justin Simon QC for The Second, Fourth and Fifth respondents

    2013: October 18

    December 4

    Judgement
    [1] Cottle, J.: The Claimants filed the present constitutional motion seeking declarations and injunctive
    relief. A Constituencies Boundaries Commission was established under Section 63 (1) of the
    Constitution of Antigua and Barbuda. It produced a report which recommended that the boundaries
    of the constituencies, into which Antigua and Barbuda are divided, be altered. A commission was
    appointed in February 2012. It produced a first report. The present Claimants challenged that
    report, alleging inter-alia that the Constituencies Boundaries Commission had failed to adequately
    consult with interested parties. The Constituencies Boundaries Commission sought and received
    the advice of leading counsel. Based on that advice, the Constituencies Boundaries Commission
    3
    agreed that the consultation had been inadequate. The report was withdrawn and the
    Constituencies Boundaries Commission recommenced its work.
    [2] It is important to note that the first report was withdrawn by the Constituencies Boundaries
    Commission around the end of April 2013. By letter of 13th June, 2013, the Constituencies
    Boundaries Commission wrote to the First Claimant. The First Claimant received the letter on
    14th June, 2013. The missive invited him to consult, it included proposals for consideration.
    Meetings were scheduled for consultations with interested persons. These meetings were fixed for
    17th June, 2013 to 20th June, 2013. The Constituencies Boundaries Commission explains the haste
    as follows: Under Section 64 (2), the Constituencies Boundaries Commission has at most 5 years
    after the last report to submit its report to the speaker.
    Section 64 (2) of the Constitution of Antigua and Barbuda reads:-
    “A report by a Constituencies Boundaries Commission shall be submitted to the Speaker
    under this section not less than two or more than five years after the date when the last
    such report was submitted.”
    [3] The Claimants advance several complaints. They say the Constituencies Boundaries Commission
    abdicated its authority to conduct a review of all the constituencies and required data, and based
    its recommendations instead on some digital or mathematical exercise conducted by the Statistical
    Division. The Claimants also aver that the Constituencies Boundaries Commission violated Section
    3 (1) of the Constituencies Boundaries Commission Guidance Act No. 10 of 2012.
    Section 3 (1) is in these terms:-
    “(1) In conducting its review the Commission shall be guided by the cardinal principles that
    all constituencies shall contain as nearly equal numbers of inhabitants, taking into account
    the need to achieve voter’s parity, as appear to the Commission to be reasonably
    practicable, but the Commission may depart from the principles to the extent it considers
    expedient and necessary to take into account the following factors:-
    (a) The density of population and the changing demographics of the constituency;
    (b) The need to ensure the adequate representation of sparsely populated rural areas;
    (c) The geographical features of the constituency; and
    4
    (d) The boundaries of the various towns and villages and more particularly, residential
    area expansions.”
    [4] Another grouse of the Claimants is the alleged failure of the Constituencies Boundaries
    Commission to consult properly as required by Section 3 (2) of Act 10 of 2012:-
    “(2) during the process of review, the Commission shall where necessary hold consultation
    with interested persons and obtain credible data or information to assist it in its
    deliberation.”
    The Claimants also complain that the appointment of party supporters, affiliates and activists to the
    Constituencies Boundaries Commission, gives rise to a real likelihood of bias in the carrying out of
    the Constituencies Boundaries Commission’s constitutionally important functions.
    [5] At the hearing, Mr. Astaphan SC submitted that the right to vote under the constitution is a settled
    one. That right is a right to vote is a properly demarcated constituency. He pointed out that Section
    3 of the “Guidance” Act establishes a need to achieve voter parity as far as this is possible. Under
    Section 3, the Constituencies Boundaries Commission is required to consult with interested
    persons. As I understand Mr. Astaphan’s argument, the affidavit of Mr. Crump, Chairman of the
    Constituencies Boundaries Commission, reveals that various scenarios were put before the
    Statistical Officers to arrive at the proposals that were eventually communicated to the First
    Claimant. Mr. Astaphan says the Constituencies Boundaries Commission; in order to achieve
    meaningful consultation ought to have let the Claimants know what those scenarios were. This
    excites the suspicion of Mr. Astaphan. He asks what these scenarios were and what did the public
    officers at the Statistics Division do with those proposed scenarios? He says that as a result, the
    Claimants are disadvantaged because they were not informed as to how the Constituencies
    Boundaries Commission arrived at the demarcation of the boundaries that were sent to the First
    Claimant for consideration.
    [6] Mr. Mendes SC for the Constituencies Boundaries Commission gave a useful background. The
    first report by the Constituencies Boundaries Commission was withdrawn in April, 2013. Under
    Section 64 (2) of the constitution the Constituencies Boundaries Commission was bound to submit
    5
    a report to the speaker by 28th June, 2013. He says that against this background, the consultations
    carried out, while not ideal, were the best that could be done in the circumstances.
    [7] During the arguments it appeared that the claimants conceded that the Commission was bound to
    place before them meaningful material to evaluate before inviting consultation. Indeed that was the
    gravamen of the complaint which vitiated the first report. The Claimants cannot now argue that by
    suggesting scenarios to the statistical officers to generate options out of which the Commission
    selected, one as the basis for its proposals amounts to abdication of the Commission’s
    responsibilities. The claimants were correct to place little reliance on this complaint.
    [8] As the hearing developed, it appeared to this court that the single issue that remained in contest
    was whether Section 64 (2) of the constitution is mandatory. If it is mandatory, the efforts by the
    Respondents to consult are admittedly the best that the limited time permitted. It must be borne in
    mind that the Claimants are not entirely new to this matter. They would long have been aware that
    the Constituencies Boundaries Commission was contemplating changes to the existing
    constituency boundaries and would have been able to put forward their own proposals, developed
    independently, for the Constituencies Boundaries Commission to consider.
    [9] The Claimants cited the decision of the Privy Council in Russell v Attorney General of St.
    Vincent and the Grenadines,1997 1 WLR 1134. Section 33 (3) (a) and Section 33 (4) of the
    Constitution of St Vincent and the Grenadines read as follows:-
    “33 (a) Constituency Boundaries Commission shall be appointed in the following
    circumstances, that is to say: whenever a census of the population of St. Vincent has been
    held in pursuance of any law.”
    (4) Whenever the commission has been appointed in the circumstances specified in
    subsection (3) (a) or in the circumstances specified in subsection (3) (b) of this section it
    shall forthwith carry out a review of the boundaries of the constituencies into which St.
    Vincent is divided and may (and in the circumstances specified in subsection (3)(b) shall),
    by order, alter the boundaries in accordance with the provisions of this section to such
    extent as it thinks desirable in the light of those circumstances and the review.”
    6
    [10] After a census had been held and a report published, no Constituencies Boundaries Commission
    was appointed. An election was held. The Claimants contended that the general election had been
    conducted in contravention to Section 33 of the constitution. The matter was considered by the
    Privy Council. Their Lordships concluded that Section 33, of the Constitution of St Vincent and the
    Grenadines was not ‘mandatory’ in the special sense that the appointment of a Constituencies
    Boundaries Commission was a condition precedent to a valid election.
    [11] Counsel for the Claimants now argues that the failure to submit a report by 28th June, 2013 would
    not be fatal to the validity of the Constituencies Boundaries Commission report. There would then
    be no need for the hurried consultation. The Commission could ignore the June 28th 2013 deadline
    and hold extended consultation sessions.
    [12] I note that the Privy Council in Russell’s case was careful to confine their remarks to the effect of a
    failure to comply with Section 33 of the constitution on the validity of a subsequent election. I do not
    take that to mean that a constitutionally imposed obligation is to be lightly or cavalierly ignored.
    [13] Lord Hailsham put it well in London and Clydesdale Estates Ltd v Aberdeen District Council
    1980 1 WLR 182 at page 189-190:-
    “When Parliament lays down a statutory requirement for the exercise of legal authority it
    expects its authority to be obeyed down to the minutest detail. But what the courts have to
    decide in a particular case is the legal consequence of non-compliance on the rights of the
    subject viewed in the light of a concrete state of facts and a continuing chain of events.”
    [14] In the present case, I conclude that the Constituencies Boundaries Commission was entirely
    justified in considering themselves bound to produce their report by the June 28, 2013 deadline.
    The Constitution remains the supreme law. Given this imperative, the consultations, admittedly less
    than ideal, were adequate in the circumstances.
    [15] The Claimants also complain that the Constituencies Boundaries Commission failed to consult
    before coming up with their proposals. Section 3 (2) of the Guidance Act requires the
    Constituencies Boundaries Commission to consult with interested persons. It is accepted that the
    7
    Claimants fall within this class of persons. But it is now settled law that in order to have proper
    consultations, those who are to be consulted must be afforded information as to what is to be
    considered. The Constituencies Boundaries Commission received the census data on
    7th June, 2013. They then developed the proposals which they sent to the Claimants for their
    consideration one week later. The consultations were fixed for a 4 day period beginning on
    17th June, 2013. I am satisfied that the Constituencies Boundaries Commission complied with Act
    10 of 2012.
    [16] The Claimants also submitted that the recommendations of the Constituencies Boundaries
    Commission are unreasonable or irrational. The role of this court is not to substitute its judgment
    for that of the Constituencies Boundaries Commission. It cannot be said that the conclusions at
    which the Constituencies Boundaries Commission arrived are so outside the pale that no
    reasonable body could reach them. I am satisfied that this description cannot be applied to the
    recommendations of the Constituencies Boundaries Commission.
    [17] Although the Claimants also averred gerrymandering and bias on the part of the Constituencies
    Boundaries Commission no cogent evidence was led to support either allegation. The
    Constituencies Boundaries Commission says they had no regard to party support in deciding on
    the amended boundaries. In his affidavit, the First Claimant says the effect of the proposed
    recommendations is to dilute his areas of popular support and strengthen those of less political
    opponents. This was not demonstrated with the specificity an allegation of fraud would demand. It
    was not pursued with any vigor at the hearing. The Claimants were correct to adopt this approach.
    [18] I therefore decline to grant the Claimants they seek. The claim is dismissed. I do not consider that
    the Claimants have acted unreasonably in bringing the present claim and so I make no order as to
    costs.
    Brian Cottle
    High Court Judge

    /hon-gaston-browne-et-al-v-constituencies-boundaries-commission-et-al/
     Prev
    Honourable Gaston Browne v The Attorney General of Antigua And Barbuda
    Next 
    Gedds Meyer v Kehvin Dickinson
    Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court

    2nd Floor Heraldine Rock Building
    Waterfront
    P.O. Box 1093
    Castries
    Saint Lucia
    T: +1 758 457 3600
    E: offices@eccourts.org

    • About Us
      • Court Overview
      • Career Opportunities
      • Directory
      • Privacy Policy
    • Judgments
      • Court Of Appeal
      • High Court
    • Sittings
      • Chamber Hearing
      • Court of Appeal
      • High Court
    • News & Updates
      • Appointments
      • Press Releases
    • Civil Procedure Rules
      • Court Forms
      • Practice Directions
    © 2023 Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court. All Rights Reserved

    Submit your email address and name to subscribe for email notifcations.

    [email-subscribers-advanced-form id="1"]
    Bookmark
    Remove Item
    Sign in to continue
    or

    Bookmarked Items
    •  Home
    • Judgments
    • Sittings
    •  News
    •  more