Trust joins CPR legal case

| 04/12/2019 | 19 Comments
National Trust of the Cayman Islands
Nadia Hardie, Executive Director of the National Trust for the Cayman Islands

(CNS): The National Trust for the Cayman Islands has confirmed that rather than pursuing a separate parallel case regarding the cruise port vote, it will become an interested party in the application brought by Shirley Roulstone, who is representing the Cruise Port Referendum grassroots movement. Following Tuesday’s court ruling delaying the people’s referendum until after the judicial review is completed, the Trust said its aim was still to ensure that the public sees all the essential environmental assessments before they go to the polls.

After submissions from the lawyers for government, Roulstone and CPR Cayman, as well as the Trust, the judge found there was a case to argue and the court postponed the referendum to allow for a full hearing to take place.

“The National Trust is committed to taking all reasonable steps, including participating fully in these proceedings, to ensure that all the essential environmental assessments are conducted and published, and that reliable information is provided to the public in respect of the impact that this project will have on our precious and endangered coral reefs, our treasured heritage, and our fragile natural environment,” Trust Director Nadia Hardie said.

“This should happen well in advance of any vote in order to allow for proper public consultation and scrutiny of the proposed project. Only in this way can we ensure that the public is equipped to make a fully informed choice – in a decision which will impact upon not only upon our environment and heritage but upon the lives of all Caymanians and future generations,” she added.

While the Trust has focused its legal challenge on the need for all of the environmental and geo-technical reports to be completed and published before the people’s vote, CPR has many more additional concerns, and lawyers representing Roulstone at the hearing Tuesday summed them up.

The lawyers for Roulstone outlined her grounds for judicial review, pointing to the construction of the question, which they argued is neither fair nor neutral, the lack of campaign finance regulations and the environmental concerns relating to the project.

The judge granted leave for the review on all of the grounds presented and dismissed the arguments made by government’s lawyers that the referendum needed to move forward, given the importance of this project to the country.

Share your vote!

How do you feel after reading this?
  • Fascinated
  • Happy
  • Sad
  • Angry
  • Bored
  • Afraid
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Tags: , , , ,

Category: development, Local News

Comments (19)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Mark says:

    There’s nothing and no one will stop this port From being built. The majority of people want the port that’s why it took CPR a year to get 5000 signatures!

    Let’s face it. We elected a government knowing fully well what their manifesto was eo, quit the argument!

  2. Anonymous says:

    The compass reports that the Elections office needs more money because the KYD$900,000 allocated for the now defunct Referendum vote/questions will be exhausted this month, presumably from sending out just 250 postal ballots and receiving back just 80. Does that make sense to anyone?!?

    • Anonymous says:

      CIG Budget doesn’t roll over. So if you don’t spend it now (don’t have the vote) then you need to get it re-approved for next year (assuming a vote next year).

  3. JB says:

    I wrote a similar response to this issue before and I add more here. We make choices based on as much information as we are given. If the information is not forthcoming then we say no. If in doubt we say no. If we do not trust we say no. Simple!

    We vote in the biggest referendum of them all which is a general election based on superficial manifestos and promises. Should we seek judicial review in that case because we are being asked to decide on a government without having all the facts and details? No we don’t! We go to the polls and vote based on what is before us, for better or worse. The port issue is no different.

    If we are really concerned about the port issue no matter what we would put life on hold and turn out to vote. Is it that the lawn talkers are just talkers and just can’t be bothered to turn out in their numbers. Is it that the date will conflict with Christmas plans which for the passionate ones is more important that the port? Folks, we have an opportunity to make a historic choice. We have a say on referendum day. This is a far far cry from many undemocratic processes worldwide. Lack of information is information. Who determines whose information is accurate? If you have faith you say yes. If you believe you say yes. If you don’t you just say no! SIMPLE.

    Folks get moving on this process. The project is of importance in one form or the other. Go out and vote and don’t do things that will abort the process and possibly the entire project. The government has done the responsible thing and delayed the negotiating process so that we can have our say. The Government could have easily fast tracked the process and not wait on any petition. They did not even have to disclose what they were doing. Government’s are elected to govern in the best way they deem fit. If they govern contrary to the interests of the people then vote them out on election day.

    • Anonymous says:

      Maybe you were high on glue at the time, but neither party received a mandate from last election. Spare us this revisionist account of what actually happened, your imaginations about autocratic rule, and the misplaced hope for further suppression of reality. Nothing this regime attempts will expedite and circumvent lawful procurement and disclosure required as a UK Territory. Some of these idols of yours may have quite a lot more personal hot water to navigate before it’s all over.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Look at Moses’s government biography – HE IS A FOUNDING MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL TRUST – so obviously he supports their causes. . . right?

    • Anonymous says:


      • Anonymous says:

        Yes Lol it is true – Moses is a founding member of the National Trust and not one person has argued or disputed this fact here on CNS

    • Someone says:

      There are many members, probably a majority, of the National Trust who do not agree with the present course of action, but the majority of the Trust Council are for it.

      You can’t make an omelette without breaking some eggs: Jim Bodden demolished the most significant piece of history right in the middle of George Town, and he was made a ‘National Hero’. Cayman logic defies reason.

      • Anonymous says:

        Really, and how would you know that? The Trust Council voted to pursue this matter in the Courts or they wouldn’t be going for a Judicial Review. Your BS statement clearly shows you know and understand nothing of how the Trust works. They are also having an EGM to canvass their members on what they want. #truthmatters

  5. Anonymous says:

    Moses has gone all-in on Unity’s post-truth agenda. Really embarrassing to see him extending this losing narrative in the BBC.

    • Anonymous says:

      All that the Tourism Minister has to do is publish all relevant environmental assessments and reports – seems to be pretty simple and common sense nothing to hide, nothing to fear so just go ahead and publish it all. Is everything so Top Secret that it effects national security???

      Kind of makes you wonder why he has his minions going house to house from Spot Bay all the way to West End handing out flyers advertising a meeting of Local and National importance.

      Okay so the cruise port issue is on hold, but what about other issues that affect Cayman Brac and Little Cayman? Can’t recall one public meeting that both representatives from the Sister Isands have had since last election – so clearly the meeting for this Friday night was strictly about the cruise port issue.

      You can still have a meeting and the people will come – especially if you are offering refreshments. Can you please have some conch, turtle, whelks, rice and peas and heavy cakes at the meeting – thanks – GO MOSES and GO JULIANA we on these two islands are with you all the way (note: at this point I am sarcastically bowing and awaiting the reply from certain minions)

      • Anonymous says:

        And yet here it is a day later and no reply from the top minions telling me just how wrong I am about the public meetings

  6. Anonymous says:

    Maybe now they’ll have some spare funds available for a Judicial Review on the Beach Bay travesty?

    • Anonymous says:

      Maybe you’ll get a new record to replace this broken one

      • Anonymous says:

        Maybe you’ll get us a new turtle nesting beach to replace the one you seek to destroy?

    • JTB says:

      If you’ve got any legal grounds for the Trust to judicially review the Beach Bay project I’m sure they’d be glad to hear them, after all the Trust did speak against the project in the National Conservation Council. But since it’s not a government project, and the Trust isn’t an adjoining landowner and so had no right to object to CPA, I can’t think of any.

  7. Kurt Christian says:

    Register To Vote

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.