Email

Print

And so while the court's finding may now be academic since the power equation already gave the victory to Tracy, it was still a big day in the High Court today. Jules Vasquez was there.

Shyne Barrow walked up the High Court stairs solo this morning.

His Jamaican attorney, Dr Chris Malcolm, arrived earlier - seen here talking with Hugo Patt's Attorney, Steve Perrera.

On the other side, Tracy Panton's attorney, King's Council Peter Knox ambled up the stairs accompanied by Sheena Pitts and Lee Mark Chang

Tracy Panton supporters filled the courtroom and the were visible in the surrounding area

Her co-defendant, former Secretary General Phillipa Bailey also made into court.

As did Senator Patrick Faber.

While Perera was only there to say Hugo Patt was withdrawing from the claim, Knox and Malcom presented their arguments for about 4 hours before Justice Hondora who said he was impressed with the submissions.

Shyne Barrow says the other side has a fatal flaw in their case:

Shyne Barrow, Former Leader UDP
"I heard the learned Justice Hondora repeatedly question the defendants as to their contradictory positions which is that the rules were not followed in regards to the expulsion dismissal of Tracy Panton, yes when it comes to the rules and the compliances neccessary for the October 20th event that they held, they are saying that they didn't have to follow the rules. So the learned Justice had great difficulty accepting that from what I saw."

Peter Knox, KC, Attorney - Tracy Panton "I think the two situations are slightly different. On the expulsion point, we say the Constitution is clear. That was our argument. There's no room for any doubt as to what it meant at all. On the point about whether Mrs. Panton was entitled to call the Convention, our point is... simply the Constitution doesn't say one way or the other, whether she could or couldn't. Therefore she could. Nothing prevented her from doing so."

"They didn't do what they were supposed to be doing. So of course Mrs. Panton was entitled to give effect to the delegates' rights the way she did. That was the argument. I think it's a good and respectable argument. We shall see what the judge has to say about it."

But why does it even matter since Barrow is no longer leader?:

Jules Vasquez
"What really is this is the case about, because is it all just an academic exercise to prove retrospectively who's right and who's wrong? Because you've resigned as leader of the UDP. I don't know what standing you still retain."

Shyne Barrow, Former Leader UDP
"We have to demonstrate to the public that we adhere to the rule of law and that we will be compliant with whatever oath of office it is that we take."

"There are significant damages to be had for that. which costs many of my colleagues to lose their seat, cost me to lose my seat, in my opinion. There are valid arguments to be made, and for the sake of democracy."

Tracy Panton, Leader of the Opposition
"I think that this is an academic exercise. The people of this country have spoken. The delegates of the United Democratic Party have spoken. And I am the leader of the opposition in the National Assembly, unanimously supported by all members on the opposition side."

Peter Knox, KC, Attorney - Tracy Panton
"The question of who was the leader is academic, because we all now know who is the leader."

And while Barrow is not satisfied with that - the fact is this is a costly trial - with two big time attorneys flying in for the hearing, and cost is a factor:

Peter Knox, KC, Attorney - Tracy Panton
"Of course, there is still the question of costs. It might be said, well, that's still an outstanding issue. But it's not really the main issue."

Justice Hondora reserved his decision for a later date - saying he will deliver it as soon as possible.