Lawyer Kate McClymont with her client, Shirley Roulstone

(CNS): Visiting Grand Court judge, Justice Tim Owen, has put a stay on the people-initiated referendum on the government’s proposed cruise dock in order to allow time for judicial review applications by both Shirley Roulstone, a CPR member, and the National Trust for the Cayman Islands to be properly aired in the court. Justice Owen said he believed there was a case to be heard and a provisional date has been set for late January.

The JR application was heard in chambers Tuesday morning. Roulstone said she was very pleased that the courts had agreed to hear the judicial review, as she noted the importance of making this vote fair. She said the decision was very important.

“We have a wonderful, amazing legal team,” said Roulstone, who was represented by Kate McClymont from Broadhurst Attorneys. “CPR has always been about transparency, democracy and upholding the laws of the land, but we don’t think the referendum was handled in a very democratic or constitutional way and we wanted to fight that. But everyone will now be on notice that this is going to be a fair referendum when it happens.”

Following the news from the court that the referendum would be deferred until after the court makes a decision regarding the arguments put forward for judicial review, Premier Alden McLaughlin issued a short statement.

“As I have been saying for the past few weeks, the referendum was at risk,” McLaughlin said. “We will now need to await the judicial review in January before having a clear idea as to the way forward. I do believe the majority of the country was prepared to go to the polls and vote in the referendum on 19 December, which will remain a public holiday as it is now too late to rescind it.”



However, the premier had set the date and question for the referendum in the face of immediate significant concern about the vote being just six days before Christmas and the question not reflecting the original peition that triggered the people’s referendum. Despite the legal opinion about the many problems surrounding the date, question and process the premier opted to address only legal technicalities regarding the referendum law and none of the substantive concerns outlined in the CPR’s letter to the premier before action.

Government also opted to ignore the National Trust’s concerns about the country going to the polls in the absence of all of the major environmental and geo-technical information about the project’s impact. That case was also heard alongside Roulstone’s individual application today. But given that many of the points in the cases cross-over the Trust application will be heard as part of the same judicial review as Rousltone’s in the New Year.