The Tribune

By TANEKA THOMPSON

Tribune News Editor

tmthompson@tribunemedia.net

FOX Hill MP Fred Mitchell railed against Justice Indra Charles’ Supreme Court ruling on parliamentary privilege in the House of Assembly last night, suggesting that it was outrageous that parliamentarians could not respond to “rich foreigners” funneling millions of dollars into a law firm “to get a judge” to “agree” with their arguments.

He rose in Parliament to respond to statements Save the Bays’ Legal Director Fred Smith, QC, made to The Tribune.

In an article published on Monday, Mr Smith said he would make a formal complaint to the Office of the Attorney General and the Bar Association about Marco City MP Greg Moss in reference to his suggestion in the House of Assembly last week that Save the Bays engaged in “forum shopping” in the Supreme Court.

Mr Moss’ comments came as he reacted in the House of Assembly last Wednesday to Justice Charles’ historic ruling that Education Minister Jerome Fitzgerald infringed on the constitutional rights of members of Save the Bays when he tabled their personal emails in Parliament in March. Justice Charles ordered Mr Fitzgerald to pay $150,000 in damages.

Referring to Justice Charles’ more than 90-page long ruling, Mr Mitchell quipped: “I have a friend . . . who is a lawyer who says anytime you see a long judgment, you can bet that there’s an error of law on every page, so I just start with that.

“But the more serious point, Mr Speaker, is this . . . there has been a lot of public discussion, most of it managed by the press, that appears to be hostile to the position which has been taken by members of Parliament in defence of freedom of speech in this place.”

He said it was important for House Speaker Dr Kendal Major to “constantly reaffirm the point on behalf of this House that this matter is not about saving the financial services sector … this is about the right of members of Parliament to speak freely in this Parliament.”

He said the law has always been clear on this point, adding that anything said in Parliament “has no sanction, whether criminal or civil.”

He stressed that parliamentary privilege was essential so that members of Parliament could speak freely on behalf of their constituents.

“That’s what it is meant to do, so that every constituent who votes for one of us knows that if they bring some case to us, that we can bring the case in here and that there is no sanction for what we say.

“Imagine, sir, that some private citizen discovered what we discovered, and the burden is then put on them to bring a legal action by originating summons - you know the prices Fred Smith charges to go to court? Can you imagine if some small private citizen in Fox Hill had to bring the matter which threatened, we say, which looked on the face of it to threaten the stability of our country where rich foreigners put millions of dollars through a law firm to destabilise the country – to bring that action in the court? How much that would cost?

“That’s why we have the privilege. It’s the cheap method. They can come to us and say we have discovered something wrong and we think you need to go to Parliament and make this complaint on our behalf.

“And now you have rich foreigners using millions of dollars funnelled through a law firm to actually get a judge in a court to agree to do that, and we mustn’t say anything in response to that?”

Mr Mitchell said this was a serious matter that went to the heart of the country’s democracy, which should be dealt with in court and by the House Committee on Privilege.

He added: “ . . .Parliament at the end of the day could define the privilege to vacate the very judgment which exists, it has that power, and that’s a constitutional power.”

In response, Dr Major said he is also concerned about the ruling.

“I would only say this much in closing honourable member, that the chair concurs with and joins you in your concern as I am in the process of reading the judgment,” Dr Major said. “I have noted a couple of things, that the weight of levity the honourable judge has applied seems to be promulgating the idea that this is the executive overreaching.

“And I take great issue with that, each member in here when they speak, speaks as an individual member of Parliament, so that’s one of the first things. Secondly for me, this is no political matter and I believe every member of this place ought to be outraged by what has been attempted,” Dr Major said, as parliamentarians banged on their desks in support.

“Thirdly, I must add that this is becoming extremely vexatious and an irritant that this is continuing on . . . fourthly, the Committee on Privilege and the chairman ought to be appointed and start its work.”

Dr Major also said he would support the committee’s findings and in the meantime, Parliament will do its work unfettered.