Go back to courtBy Andre Bagoo Tuesday, October 6 2009
Hart and Jeremie met at Cabildo Chambers on St Vincent Street, Port-of-Spain yesterday afternoon, while, a few blocks away, four members of the Udecott board were defending the company’s actions in court last week at a press conference held at the Udecott office on Sackville Street. Contacted yesterday after the meeting, Hart would not deny that it took place. He, however, declined to give further details.
But at yesterday’s press conference, Udecott deputy chairman Dr Krishna Bahadoorsingh confirmed Hart had been “called out to a meeting.”
“He was here with us but he had to leave and he said he was going to try to make it back,” Bahadoorsingh told reporters. He did not specify, however, details of the meeting. It is understood that at the meeting, Jeremie asked Hart to instruct the Udecott legal team to return to the High Court to enter a new consent order replacing last week’s order which had been agreed to by the lawyers and counsel for the inquiry.
Hours after this meeting, Udecott announced that it had instructed its attorneys to amend the consent order.
At about 7.25 pm, Udecott’s public affairs coordinator Roxanne Stapleton-Whyms issued a statement that Udecott believed the “balance struck by the consent order presented last Friday can be even further improved and its rights to fair treatment and fair play and the public’s right to information even better secured by certain adjustments to those orders.”
Udecott’s attorneys will “reexamine the consent order with a view to identifying any areas which might be adjusted to more fully achieve this balance which is the desired objective of both Udecott and the Commission of Inquiry,” Stapleton-Whyms stated.
It is expected that lawyers for Udecott and the Uff inquiry will meet to discuss changes to the order.
According to Stapleton-Whyms, “Once these further orders have been agreed to, it is Udecott’s intention to approach the High Court to seek the High Court’s leave to put such further orders in place.”
The statement did not indicate if the review would include an application to the High Court to withdraw the stay on further hearings of the Uff inquiry pending a judicial review on the grounds of apparent bias filed by Udecott which is scheduled for February 2010.
That order gave the undertaking that, “there will be no reinstatement or resumption of the inquiry by way of further hearings or reception of evidence or the preparation and/or publication and/or dissemination of any report(s).” Newsday understands the new order would omit the word “preparation” which has had the effect of barring inquiry chairman Prof John Uff from even formulating an interim report pending the resolution of the several court challenges Udecott has brought against the inquiry.
Such an order would be in line with the one suggested by attorneys acting on behalf of the commissioners, of the London firm Charles Russell, who, in a letter dated October 1 to the Udecott legal team, had indicated that “the commissioners have no present intention to proceed with any hearing of the inquiry or to publish any part of the report.”
The London lawyers had also noted that “the commissioners undertake to give Udecott at least 28 days notice should they decide to proceed with any further hearings or to deliver the report to the President as required by their terms of reference.”
However, the ban on the preparation of the report was not a part of the undertaking as offered in that correspondence.
Lawyers for Udecott could as early as today seek an audience with Justice Mira Dean-Armorer who last Friday signed-off on the consent order that had been agreed to after two hours of behind-the-scenes negotiations between the legal teams.
Jeremie’s intervention came after several Government and Opposition politicians called for his resignation after it was revealed he had been virtually defied by lawyers acting on behalf of Udecott.
In the Senate last Thursday, while debating the Commissions of Inquiry (Validation and Immunity from Proceedings) Bill 2009, Jeremie gave the assurance that while Udecott would be pursuing its challenge of the proceedings in the court, it would not be seeking a stay.
“In respect of the application for interim relief, I expressed my view that it was unfair for them to proceed with those claims at this time before the Uff Commission had had a realistic opportunity to be heard in respect of the application for interim relief. So the point is, the proceedings have not been stayed and my understanding is that whatever happens in court tomorrow (Friday), Udecott will not seek to stay the proceedings of the commission, at least until such time as Professor Uff...has an opportunity to be heard in respect of the application for bias,” Jeremie said.
However, hours later, lawyers acting on behalf of Udecott, led by British Queen’s Counsel Andrew Goddard QC, approached the High Court prepared to argue the merits of an application for interim relief pending hearing of the substantial matter. Such arguments could have culminated in Dean-Armorer granting a stay of the proceedings.
It is understood that lawyers for the inquiry, thus, engaged the Udecott lawyers in the hope of entering a consent order in the terms outlined in the Charles Russell letter of October 1.
But Udecott refused and threatened to argue the matter before the judge, even though counsel for the inquiry was without its lead attorney Michael Beloff QC.
The move on the part of the Attorney General will raise the stakes in the ongoing fallout over the stalled inquiry proceedings which are already estimated to have consumed more than $20 million.
