Former Magistrate's Claim Dismissed

The following press release was issued on Wednesday, May 3rd, by the Attorney General’s Chamber.

Former Magistrate, Mr. Homer Richardson’s claim against the Government of Anguilla was dismissed by the Honourable Justice Bruce-Lyle on April 27, 2006. Mr. Richardson alleged that section 13 of the Anguilla Constitution Order had been contravened in relation to him and he was therefore seeking redress in accordance with section 16 (1) of the said Constitution Order. A constitutional motion was filed by Mr. Richardson wherein he sought a number of orders including:

• That he had been discriminated against when he was denied the payment of Housing Allowance which he was entitled to under the contracts of employment he had with the Government of Anguilla or alternatively that the refusal of the Government of Anguilla to pay him a Housing Allowance was repugnant to the Constitution as being discriminatory;

• That he had a legitimate expectation that the Governor would have renewed his Contract of Employment in accordance with section 68 of the Constitution;

• That the action of His Excellency the Governor as regard to the non-renewal or temporary extension of his Contract of Employment was unilateral, capricious and unconstitutional;

• That the actions of His Excellency the Governor in relation to his request for continued employment with the Government of Anguilla was an arbitrary and capricious abuse of power and constituted an unlawful termination of his appointment as Magistrate.

On March 20, 2006, before any substantive issues were heard Counsel for the Government of Anguilla, Mr. Patrick Patterson, of Caribbean Associated Attorneys, raised a number of preliminary points, to which Counsel for Mr. Richardson, Mr. Horace Frazier responded. The matter was adjourned to April 27, 2006 for a ruling. The Judge ruled that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and that wide powers of discretion are given to the Governor. Mr. Richardson failed to show that the Governor acted in a capricious manner and the Judge found that there was no need to delve into the actions of the Governor. The Judge found that Mr. Richardson’s use of a constitutional motion, as a form of redress was an abuse of process as it is clear that he had an alternative means of seeking redress. The Judge found that Mr. Richardson was afforded due process and that at every turn of the disciplinary proceedings he was informed of what was taking place and invited to state his case. The Judge indicated that Mr. Richardson had failed to identify that he had been discriminated against on any of the grounds stipulated in section 13 of the Constitution.

The Judge ruled that Mr. Richardson’s claim was not properly constituted and struck it out in its entirety.