Email

Print

But the PUP still went ahead and filed a constitutional challenge to the S.I. yesterday. Party Leader John Briceno is suing the Attorney General and the Governor General.

Briceno says the law is unconstitutional on two grounds.  First, that it limits a citizen’s freedom of movement, and second that the exercise of power was outside the scope of authority prescribed by the public safety act.

The PUP’s Legal Advisor Andrew Marshalleck explained it today:…

Andrew Marshalleck, SC - PUP Legal Advisor
"The challenge to the constitutionality of it lies in the simple contention that there was really no risk of any civil commotion threatening public safety. Now civil commotion is a legal term, there's common law defining it and what it means in the main is an insurrection of the people that’s of the magnitude little greater than a riot and a little less than a civil war. We are saying that there was never any risk of that and there was no rational basis in which the power to pass a SI to restrict freedom of movement could validly and justifiably be passed."

Jules Vasquez
"It will only be legally for about two more weeks, little more than two weeks. Constitutional motions aren't usually heard that expeditiously."

Andrew Marshalleck, SC - PUP Legal Advisor
"For sure; yes that is a practical consideration and one that we bare firmly in mind. The consequence of it is that it is very likely in fact near certainty that by the time the claim come on for hearing, the law would effectively been spent."

Jules Vasquez
"Is the PUP just trying to do something to say that well bwai you can't say we never try? In terms of it being something symbolically which has no practical effect?"

Andrew Marshalleck, SC - PUP Legal Advisor
"If the claim goes forward and there is a determination there will be a practical effect in that we will know for certain and have guidance from the court as to when its correct for powers of these natures to be exercised going forward should similar situation ever arise again; that’s the only value to be had from it given that as you say. It is likely the law will be spent by the time the case comes on for hearing, that is so but the SI is made largely we believe for political reasons and for that very reason the response to it is largely political."

And who while it may be only an academic exercise by the time it reaches court, today’s PUP press release says, quote, “arrangements are being made for the party members to travel to the Sarstoon River.â€￾  Now that sounds illegal, and we asked the party’s lawyer what’s his position on that:…

Jules Vasquez
"If they ask you bwai legal advisor should we go to Sarstoon, would you advise them yes proceed because a law like that cannot stand?"

Andrew Marshalleck, SC - PUP Legal Advisor
"No. My advice to them is that they have to obey the law and unless and until there is a declaration that the law is no good, it is the law; so that the trip to the Sarstoon if you're confronted and prohibited then you will have to obey."

Reporter
"According to the release of which today the PUP intend on going."

Andrew Marshalleck, SC - PUP Legal Advisor
"Yes but I don't think they intend to break any laws in doing that; so I don't think that arises."

Reporter
"But they could be arrested."

Andrew Marshalleck, SC - PUP Legal Advisor
"You could only be arrested if you break a law. The prohibition the restriction of movement within the define coordinates. You can certainly visit right up to the boundary of it."

The PUP has announced no date for the party’s southern voyage.  We’ll keep you posted.