Parry uses Brantley's appeal court submission to his defence
- Published on Friday, 01 November 2013 07:52
- Written by Andre Huie
- Hits: 2155
St. Kitts and Nevis (WINN): Former premier Joseph Parry is using a submission by the CCM’s Mark Brantley in the court of appeal case last November to support his view that the Court erred in a ruling against him and his former deputy premier Hensley Daniel. The Appeal Court last year in the Nevis election petition ordered costs against Parry and Daniel on the alleged grounds of misfeasance and bad faith in relation to the compilation of the voter’s list.
But Mr. Parry, speaking at his party press conference this week, is suggesting that Mr. Brantley conceded in his submission that both Mr. Parry and Mr. Daniel had nothing to do with the compilation of the voters list and that the court erred. Mr. Parry is arguing that on these grounds, he should not have to pay costs and that was why the court deleted costs against him and Mr. Daniel. “In November (2012), Mr. Brantley is making a submission to the Appeals Court virtually saying neither Mr. Daniel or myself was accused of bad faith; there is no evidence anywhere and so the court made a mistake,” Parry said.
In 2012 the Appeal Court upheld a lower court’s ruling that the election result in Nevis' St. John’s District was null and void and slammed electoral officials for acting in “bad faith,” demonstrating “misfeasance,” and guilty of “reckless indifference” breaking the law. However, legal counseling representing Mr. Brantley, Dahlia Joseph explains in an interview with WINN that Mr. Brantley conceded in the submission that Mr. Daniel had nothing to do with the compilation of the voters list, but in the case of Mr. Parry, he infringed on Mr. Brantley’s constitutional rights by denying him access to the state supported Nevis Newscast. “Mr. Brantley’s position in relation to Hensley Daniel, in terms of what was pleaded in court and the evidence that was lead, we felt that there wasn’t a basis then for holding that Mr. Daniel was guilty of bad faith in terms of the preparation of the (voters) list,” Ms. Joseph said.
“In relation to Mr. Parry, no concession was made because Mr. Parry was found to have infringed Mr. Brantley’s constitutional right. That finding remains; that finding was not changed at all by the court of appeal. You have to understand liability never change, the only change was who was to pay cost,” the lawyer added.
The court transcripts on the section of the pleadings in the appeal costs case last week as it relates to Mr. Parry infringing Mr. Brantley’s rights read as follows: “That the Nevis Island Administration of which Mr. Parry was the head, operating a nightly news programme funded out of public purse. That the programme was used for the Nevis Island Administration as a propaganda instrument for Mr. Parry’s party. That the State media resources in the form of its news programme was used and abused by Mr. Parry by ensuring only the political programmes organized by his was covered on the News programmes and in the premise the Respondent’s Constitutional rights were infringed.”
Hear Joseph Parry and Dahlia Joseph
Top Local Stories
Most Read - September 2015
- WINN FM Evening News - 6th October, 2015
- The Bigger Picture with Ken Richards October 4th, 2015
- The Operating Room 29th September, 2015