Privy Council hears Portmore toll case on Monday

[Tuff Gong]

Privy Council hears Portmore toll case on Monday
Monday, 15 October 2007

The United Kingdom Privy Council will on Monday begin hearing the case brought by a group of Portmore residents and Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) councillors against the construction of the toll road.

Five Law Lords are scheduled to hear the appeal.

The appellants will be represented by attorney Oswald James.

The Solicitor-General's Office will lead arguments on behalf of the Government.

The appellants have been unsuccessful in their attempts to get the local courts to agree that a decision to convert the Portmore Causeway into a toll road was a breach of their constitutional rights.

They argue that the implementation of the toll system denied them free access to their homes and properties.

The Solicitor General has in the past argued that the toll road does not deny the residents the right of enjoyment and access to their properties.

The Solicitor General argued the Mandela Highway was a reasonable alternative.

http://www.radiojamaica.com/content/view/2073/26/

[niceniss]

Re: Privy Council hears Portmore toll case on Monday

I'm listening...

[Tuff Gong]

Re: Privy Council hears Portmore toll case on Monday

Privy Council reserves judgement in Portmore toll case
Tuesday, October 16, 2007

THE Judicial Committee of the United Kingdom-based Privy Council yesterday reserved judgement in the case brought against the government by a group of Portmore residents opposed to the imposition of a toll to use the Portmore leg of Highway 2000.

The suit, brought by five residents of the municipality - Dr Andrew Wheatley (Jamaica Labour Party councillor, Naggo Head Division); Councillor Natalie Campbell-Rodrigues (JLP, Westchester Division); Councillor Keith Blake (JLP, Independence City Division); Valrene Bennett; and Anton Young - was heard in London yesterday by a panel of five law lords.

Attorney Oswald James, who is representing the Portmore residents, told the Observer after the hearing that he was optimistic that the judgment would be delivered "shortly".

The residents had taken the government to court after the administration, in July 2006, went ahead and gave permission for the conversion of the old causeway linking the capital city of Kingston to the municipality of Portmore, into a six-lane toll expressway.

They contended that being required to pay to use the causeway, the shortest route to their homes, was a breach of their constitutional right.

In March, the Court of Appeal granted final leave to the residents to take the issue to the Privy Council, Jamaica's final court of appeal.

http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/html...E_TOLL_CASE.asp

[Dr.Dudd]

Privy council not opposed to toll

Privy council not opposed to toll
Gleaner published: Wednesday | October 17, 2007


Barbara Gayle, Staff Reporter


( L - R ) Hylton, James

The United Kingdom Privy Council on Monday heard the appeal by five residents of Portmore, St. Catherine, in which they were claiming that the imposition of a toll for the use of the Portmore Causeway breached their constitutional rights.

While the law lords did not formally hand down their decision, they made it clear that they were going to dismiss the appeal and rule in favour of the Government when they told Solicitor General Michael Hylton Q.C., that he did not have to reply to the oral submissions made by attorney-at-law, Oswald James, on the residents' behalf.

As he had done before the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, Mr. James argued that his clients had a constitutional right to enjoy their property freely and without restrictions, and that the imposition of the toll breached that right. He said the burden was on the Government to show that there was no bette and it had failed to do so.

Mr. Hylton argued in his written submissions that the Constitution did not protect a vague, general right to enjoy property; it protected people from the compulsory acquisition of their property and there had been no compulsory acquisition in this case. He submitted that in any event, there was no restriction on the appellants' ability to enjoy their property since the evidence showed that the Mandela Highway was a free, acceptabl route.

Unusual step

In a somewhat unusual step, the law lords allowed the Solicitor General to use a laptop computer and large monitors in the courtroom to show maps of the Portmore area and traffic studies showing the length (in time and distance) using th routes between Portmore and various areas in Kingston.

The law lords will hand down their formal decision with reasons in a few weeks. Assistant Attorney-General Candice Rochester appeared with Mr. Hylton.

[email protected]

[Dr.Dudd]

Re: Privy council not opposed to toll

Uf theprivy council ruled in favour of these people,It would open a flood gate for ruling against all other forms of taxes.

Cant they see that it is taxes and government has the right to levy and collect taxes. even if it is through a third party?

[Tuff Gong]

Re: Privy council not opposed to toll


I think the citizens lose this one.
They should have brought their own Audiovisual Presentation to bear on the matter.
The Law Lords are not going to prevent legitimate Commerce if it does not cause more harm than good.

[Dr.Dudd]

Re: Privy council not opposed to toll

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tuff Gong</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I think the citizens lose this one.
They should have brought their own Audiovisual Presentation to bear on the matter.
The Law Lords are not going to prevent legitimate Commerce if it does not cause more harm than good.
</div></div>
If they had brought everything including th ekitchen sink they woukd still loose it.
They claim that the toll prevented them from the unemcumbered use and enjoyment of their homes.
Whhat it does is to increase the cost to them to enjoy the same. That could not be used as a reason to claim injustice.

Unless they could prove that the cost was prohibitive,they don't have a chance.
The lawyers and advisors,carry them wide.
That's all, It should have never come to this.

[Dyoll_73]

Re: Privy council not opposed to toll

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">... government has the right to levy and collect taxes. </div></div>

not a right, rather authority/power.



Welcome back, TG!

[Q3210]

Re: Privy council not opposed to toll

We the citizens of Portmore lacked fore-sight. We should have nipped the proposal of a toll road from the begining, from the time it was blue printed.

Apparently, we did not see the obstacle until it was actually built and the booths there waiting for us like fangs of a hungry jackal.

Pickersgill claimed he put the proposal of a toll road to the people of Portmore long before it was built. To whom in Portmore did he puit it is the question.
I certainly was not approached. I certainly did not see any written proposal.
The citizens of Portmore were taken for a ride by the deceptive Pickersgill.

We have but ourselves to blame, for allowing this elephant to have been constructed, toll booths that is.

The next step is to negotiate for a lesser toll payment.
J$60 for cars and motorcycles, 100 for vans and 200 for larger trucks going each way is really really way more than just paying taxes.

Yet another deception borne by the PNP Govt. that has us eating bread instead, as it was back in pre-revolutionary Louis XIII and Antoinette France.

[Tuff Gong]

Re: Privy council not opposed to toll

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dyoll_73</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">... government has the right to levy and collect taxes. </div></div>

not a right, rather authority/power.



Welcome back, TG! </div></div>
Thanks!

I don't know what the Dr. is talking about right to levy taxes. Do any Goverment have a right to trap folks in their homes?

[Tuff Gong]

Re: Privy council not opposed to toll

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Q3210</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We the citizens of Portmore lacked fore-sight. We should have nipped the proposal of a toll road from the begining, from the time it was blue printed.

Apparently, we did not see the obstacle until it was actually built and the booths there waiting for us like fangs of a hungry jackal.

Pickersgill claimed he put the proposal of a toll road to the people of Portmore long before it was built. To whom in Portmore did he puit it is the question.
I certainly was not approached. I certainly did not see any written proposal.
The citizens of Portmore were taken for a ride by the deceptive Pickersgill.

We have but ourselves to blame, for allowing this elephant to have been constructed, toll booths that is.

The next step is to negotiate for a lesser toll payment.
J$60 for cars and motorcycles, 100 for vans and 200 for larger trucks going each way is really really way more than just paying taxes.

Yet another deception borne by the PNP Govt. that has us eating bread instead, as it was back in pre-revolutionary Louis XIII and Antoinette France. </div></div>

I agree with you 100%. But there might be a Silver lining in this Cloud. The smart folks of PayMore might leave and let the ComRaids dem pay the so-called taxes.

[Q3210]

Re: Privy council not opposed to toll

Leave? Mi have nuh weh fi run guh. I`m stuck with a toll till thy kingdom come.

[niceniss]

Re: Privy council not opposed to toll

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Q3210</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We the citizens of Portmore lacked fore-sight. We should have nipped the proposal of a toll road from the begining, from the time it was blue printed.

Apparently, we did not see the obstacle until it was actually built and the booths there waiting for us like fangs of a hungry jackal.

Pickersgill claimed he put the proposal of a toll road to the people of Portmore long before it was built. To whom in Portmore did he puit it is the question.
I certainly was not approached. I certainly did not see any written proposal.
The citizens of Portmore were taken for a ride by the deceptive Pickersgill.

We have but ourselves to blame, for allowing this elephant to have been constructed, toll booths that is.

The next step is to negotiate for a lesser toll payment.
J$60 for cars and motorcycles, 100 for vans and 200 for larger trucks going each way is really really way more than just paying taxes.

Yet another deception borne by the PNP Govt. that has us eating bread instead, as it was back in pre-revolutionary Louis XIII and Antoinette France. </div></div>

I remembered one evening in 2003 they had some girls with leaflets handing out asking if ppl would like a toll bridge. the people who were with me all said an emphatic NO, so...

Portmore ppl a idiat, see dem still vote fi di jrankruff dem still [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/70392-silly.gif[/img]

[niceniss]

Re: Privy council not opposed to toll

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tuff Gong</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I think the citizens lose this one.
They should have brought their own Audiovisual Presentation to bear on the matter.
The Law Lords are not going to prevent legitimate Commerce if it does not cause more harm than good.
</div></div>

my frien, better u reserve yuh judgement till di actuall judge dem talk. all whey a gwaan me still noh waan noh goat mout ketch me people dem [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/70390-shhh.gif[/img]

[Tuff Gong]

Re: Privy council not opposed to toll

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Donnika</div><div class="ubbcode-body">my frien, better u reserve yuh judgement till di actuall judge dem talk. all whey a gwaan me still noh waan noh goat mout ketch me people dem [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/70390-shhh.gif[/img] </div></div>

I am hoping for the best but I expect the worst. You have to admit as Q#s seh, they got little help from the rest of Portmore and as you see they returned the Comrades MPs enblock.

I was hoping the lawyers would put up a quality fight, to demonstrate how the residents were hoodwinked, how the Toll Roads Agreement caused the possible Rail Alternative to be shelved, the resultant nightmare on the so-called Alternative, the confusion and gridlock @ the egress and access to this Toll Bridge.

They may well have but the reportage seems to suggest, that the GOJ Respondents, jook the Law Lords with a PowerPoint (LOL) Presentation, that might have won them over.