Blenman Misinterpreted Case Law

Prominent UK attorney Phillip Bree cited specific legal arguments that make it clear that Justice Louise Blenman erred in her recent decision. CaribArena reports:

The UK attorney said Justice Blenman misinterpreted case law in arriving at her decision.

In the Edgell v Glover case, Bree pointed out there was a one-vote difference between the candidates “and it was known for a fact that one of the postal votes had been counted illegally.”

“In my view, neither the facts nor the conclusions of the High Court in Edgell have any authoritative or persuasive bearing on the case before Blenman J," he said. "She was wrong to derive any legal test from Edgell; let alone to make it the bedrock of her decision-making."

He added that in the legal test set out in another case, Morgan v Simpson, the petitioner was obliged to show that the outcome of the election was a travesty or sham. But he said instead, Justice Blenman “watered down her decision-making to the legal equivalent of a shrug of the shoulders”.

Bree said the judge in effect reversed the burden of proof, placing it on the respondents.

“Further, by requiring the respondents to show that there was no effect on the outcome, the respondents are being asked to prove a negative,” he added. “The role of the courts in matters of constitutional significance is to take into account the public interest. Blenman J’s capricious approach has led to a severe constitutional crisis."

Read the full opinion. The UPP Team is appealing because we believe that justice must be done. It's clear from Mr. Bree's legal arguments that major errors were made in the reading of the law. For the sake of future grievances in Antigua & Barbuda and across our region, it is our obligation to make sure that the justice system gets the law right.