Categorized | Local, News, Regional

The Hon Attorney General withdraws challenge against the Governor

Attorney General Esco Henry

Hon. Attorney General, Esco Henry

by Bennette Roach :

The question left, still to be answered is how it happened or how and why it was allowed to happen that the Hon. Attorney General (AG) was forced to file action against ‘the Crown’ via Governor of Montserrat Anthony Davis and the government of Montserrat (GoM).  The consequence of that action necessitated that the Hon Attorney General was named in the action.

Miss Esco Henry is the Attorney General of Montserrat and she notes, “ the Attorney General in a private and official capacity is not the Crown although actions against the Crown are brought in the name of the Attorney General. The Attorney General is a separate legal entity from the Crown.”
Miss Henry filed the action as one would be expected after as she informed, several efforts to reach understanding, in an issue which she sought, “…to ensure that the constitutional protections which are guaranteed to every person (herself included) under the Constitution, are not violated.”
The action as Miss Henry explains in a statement which she shared with the media, entailed: “the decisions of His Excellency the Governor and the government to persist in the assessment and deduction of increased taxation from my remuneration over and above the rates which existed on the date I signed my contract in June 2011…”
The decisions the AG says, “violate my constitutional rights, freedoms and protections on several grounds,” which she sets out for simplicity in the following manner:
“1. Section 97 of the Constitution states that the remuneration of a number of officers (including the Attorney General) shall not be altered to their disadvantage after their appointment.

Governor Adrian Davis

Governor Adrian Davis

2. Section 17 of the Constitution protects every person from deprivation of property.
3. Section 16 of the Constitution protects everyone from discrimination on the ground of sex, national origin, race and colour.”
Miss Henry before withdrawing the action obtained leave to address the court. “I propose to take a particular  to instruct my Counsel to take a particular course of action with respect to this matter, but permit me My Lord to place on the record my sentiments with respect to the initiation of the action and the progress of the action up to this point, she begged, continuing to address the Hon. Justice Redhead.
She mentioned at least two appeal cases, in support of her claim.
The AG acting in her personal capacity on Thursday withdrew the application to the court for leave to seek JUDICIAL REVIEW.  She explained her decision, and in part wrote: “I have withdrawn the application from before the court of men but not from the court of Almighty God because He has assured me that I have taken this matter as far as He wants me to take it and that He will now step in and finish it decisively, justly and on His terms.”
At the beginning of the Statement explaining the withdrawal Miss Henry also noted: “…to place my side of the story before the public to whom I I am accountable in my official capacity as Attorney General. It is made out of necessity to ensure that my story is not distorted by those who seek to tell it on my behalf, do so in a skewed manner and I do so also to ensure that the seeds which are being sown will be countered by the truth.”
She thanked her attorney Mr. David Brandt, who she said, ”worked tirelessly preparing for this case and my one regret is that he did not get the opportunity to argue in his usual forceful fashion, the correctness of our legal position.”
Finally Miss Henry expressed appreciation and said she also, “…cherish the prayers and encouragement of those other persons who lent their support in any way, particularly my brothers and sisters in Christ.”
She also thanked other members of the bar who she says, “study and understand constitutional law, who are committed to the cause of right, the fight to uphold the letter and spirit of the fundamental rights and protections guaranteed by the Constitution.”
In the end, the Hon. Judge told Miss Henry, “Having heard what you’ve said I am of the view that you’ve wrestled with your conviction and the moral high ground which you have taken. Indeed the human rights provisions which you have mentioned are reflected in the Kantian theory of jurisprudence…” adding, “…I say no more than to say that I view these protections as sacrosanct.”
This action by the Hon. AG does throw some light on the discourse by the Governor as he defended and explained in answer to questions on the advertisement for a Legal Advisor at his last press conference. That advertisement sought, among other things, to “…deter the growing practice of initiating litigation against Government in the hope of making money.”

Comments are closed.

TMR print pages

Newsletter

Archives

CARICOM – Staff Vacancy

CXC HEADQUARTERS - Executive Search

https://indd.adobe.com/embed/2b4deb22-cf03-4509-9bbd-938c7e8ecc7d

A Moment with the Registrar of Lands

Attorney General Esco Henry

Hon. Attorney General, Esco Henry

by Bennette Roach :

The question left, still to be answered is how it happened or how and why it was allowed to happen that the Hon. Attorney General (AG) was forced to file action against ‘the Crown’ via Governor of Montserrat Anthony Davis and the government of Montserrat (GoM).  The consequence of that action necessitated that the Hon Attorney General was named in the action.

Insert Ads Here
Miss Esco Henry is the Attorney General of Montserrat and she notes, “ the Attorney General in a private and official capacity is not the Crown although actions against the Crown are brought in the name of the Attorney General. The Attorney General is a separate legal entity from the Crown.”
Miss Henry filed the action as one would be expected after as she informed, several efforts to reach understanding, in an issue which she sought, “…to ensure that the constitutional protections which are guaranteed to every person (herself included) under the Constitution, are not violated.”
The action as Miss Henry explains in a statement which she shared with the media, entailed: “the decisions of His Excellency the Governor and the government to persist in the assessment and deduction of increased taxation from my remuneration over and above the rates which existed on the date I signed my contract in June 2011…”
The decisions the AG says, “violate my constitutional rights, freedoms and protections on several grounds,” which she sets out for simplicity in the following manner:
“1. Section 97 of the Constitution states that the remuneration of a number of officers (including the Attorney General) shall not be altered to their disadvantage after their appointment.

Governor Adrian Davis

Governor Adrian Davis

2. Section 17 of the Constitution protects every person from deprivation of property.
3. Section 16 of the Constitution protects everyone from discrimination on the ground of sex, national origin, race and colour.”
Miss Henry before withdrawing the action obtained leave to address the court. “I propose to take a particular  to instruct my Counsel to take a particular course of action with respect to this matter, but permit me My Lord to place on the record my sentiments with respect to the initiation of the action and the progress of the action up to this point, she begged, continuing to address the Hon. Justice Redhead.
She mentioned at least two appeal cases, in support of her claim.
The AG acting in her personal capacity on Thursday withdrew the application to the court for leave to seek JUDICIAL REVIEW.  She explained her decision, and in part wrote: “I have withdrawn the application from before the court of men but not from the court of Almighty God because He has assured me that I have taken this matter as far as He wants me to take it and that He will now step in and finish it decisively, justly and on His terms.”
At the beginning of the Statement explaining the withdrawal Miss Henry also noted: “…to place my side of the story before the public to whom I I am accountable in my official capacity as Attorney General. It is made out of necessity to ensure that my story is not distorted by those who seek to tell it on my behalf, do so in a skewed manner and I do so also to ensure that the seeds which are being sown will be countered by the truth.”
She thanked her attorney Mr. David Brandt, who she said, ”worked tirelessly preparing for this case and my one regret is that he did not get the opportunity to argue in his usual forceful fashion, the correctness of our legal position.”
Finally Miss Henry expressed appreciation and said she also, “…cherish the prayers and encouragement of those other persons who lent their support in any way, particularly my brothers and sisters in Christ.”
She also thanked other members of the bar who she says, “study and understand constitutional law, who are committed to the cause of right, the fight to uphold the letter and spirit of the fundamental rights and protections guaranteed by the Constitution.”
In the end, the Hon. Judge told Miss Henry, “Having heard what you’ve said I am of the view that you’ve wrestled with your conviction and the moral high ground which you have taken. Indeed the human rights provisions which you have mentioned are reflected in the Kantian theory of jurisprudence…” adding, “…I say no more than to say that I view these protections as sacrosanct.”
This action by the Hon. AG does throw some light on the discourse by the Governor as he defended and explained in answer to questions on the advertisement for a Legal Advisor at his last press conference. That advertisement sought, among other things, to “…deter the growing practice of initiating litigation against Government in the hope of making money.”