(CMR) The Cayman Islands Court of Appeal has rejected an application by Kattina Anglin for leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) after the Court ruled that the Governor of the Cayman Islands was entitled to exercise his power to assent the Civil Partnership Act 2020.
Last year, the Grand Court ruled that the Governor's decision to assent the Civil Partnership Act was lawful. Anglin filed an appeal with the Court of Appeal, which also ruled the Governor was entitled to exercise this power. However, Anglin applied for leave to have the matter heard before the (JCPC). The Court of Appeal has denied this application.
According to the judgment issued on October 18, the issue for the Court of Appeal in the underlying case was whether the judge in the Grand Court was correct in deciding that the Governor of the Cayman Islands was entitled to exercise his reserve power under section 81 of Schedule 2 of the Cayman Islands Constitution Order 2009 (“the Constitution”) to assent to the Civil Partnership Act 2020 (“the CPA”) and, more specifically, whether he could lawfully ‘consider’ that the enactment of the CPA was ‘necessary or desirable with respect to or in the interests of’ external affairs, a matter for which the Governor is responsible under s.55(1)(b) of the Constitution.
The judgment stated that Anglin, who has no direct interest in the outcome of any appeal, submits that she is raising a point of law of great general or public importance: that she, in common with every citizen of the Cayman Islands, has an interest in ensuring that laws of general application are intra vires and that the point of law she is raising is arguable. She also submits that to deny her a right of appeal would be a violation of s.16 of the Constitution (the non-discrimination provision).
However, the Court of Appeal said this proposed appeal does not raise an arguable point of law of great general or public importance, which ought to be considered by the JCPC for several reasons.
First, all the issues now raised by the Proposed Appellant have been comprehensively considered by two courts, which were entirely consistent in their rulings. Their legal reasoning was orthodox and conventional, the judgment stated.
The Court further stated that it is indisputable that the Government of the United Kingdom had unfettered legislative power (by Order in Council) to remedy an incompatibility with the Constitution, effectively rendering the proposed appeal academic in terms of its potential impact on the laws of the Cayman Islands.
The Court, however, pointed out that a refusal of leave to appeal does not mean the ‘end of the road’ as far as the proposed appeal is concerned. Under s.22 of the 1984 Order, on a refusal of leave by the Court of Appeal, she may seek special leave from the JCPC. If she is right in her submissions in respect of the underlying case, such leave will be granted.
- Fascinated
- Happy
- Sad
- Angry
- Bored
- Afraid