JR application in civil union case released

| 02/02/2021 | 78 Comments
Kattina Anglin

(CNS): Three months after Kattina Anglin filed an application for a judicial review of the Civil Partnership Law, which was implemented last year by the governor under direction of the UK, the document has finally been released. After CNS published a related ruling allowing the application to proceed, which had also been withheld from the public, both documents have appeared on the court website (search for Kattina Anglin). But the chain of events has angered the LGBT community, who are now demanding answers about how this case is being handled.

The question of the secrecy, the legal standing of the court to allow a judicial review of a decision directed by the UK government, and the role of the attorney general in the judicial review application are all being questioned just weeks before Chantelle Day and Vickie Bodden-Bush are due to appear before the Privy Council in London arguing for the reinstatement of the chief justice’s ruling that had legalised gay marriage in March 2019.

Colours Carribean, the sister activist group of the local branch, Colours Cayman, issued a very long release Monday, identifying their concerns regarding the secrecy that had surrounded this case and the decisions made despite the presiding judge, Justice Richard Williams, indicating that he believed this was a matter of public interest.

“Colours Caribbean is exceptionally concerned in light of the evidence of the Clerk of Court that Justice Williams appears to have intended to keep this matter away from the public for motives which as of today remain unknown,” the LGBT advocates said.

CNS had received an email from the clerk of court in our efforts to secure the document that the judge had not given instructions for either Anglin’s application or his ruling to appear on the public court register.

However, CNS learned of Justice Williams’ ruling allowing Anglin’s JR application from other documents filed in the related Privy Council case and had tracked it down through other means. But it was not until this week that we were able to access Anglin’s application for judicial review.

In that document the local conservative Christian activist focused on the argument that in using his section 81 powers, the governor erred in law. She argued that because this is a domestic or devolved issue, relating to the Marriage Law, it was beyond the powers of his remit and that this was a matter reserved for Parliament.

Anglin stressed that the application was not intended to address the arguments over whether or not same-sex couples should be allowed to marry or enter into civil unions.

She argued that the governor overstepped his boundaries and did so based on the breach of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) identified by the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal. But, she argued, that did not make this case one of “external affairs”, the main constitutional grounds for a governor to use section 81 to pass legislation for the territory.

“The CPL does not fall into the remit of ‘external affairs’ or any other area of responsibility under section 55. The appropriate route to legislate is through an Order in Council under section 125 of the Constitution,” Anglin’s lawyers submit, adding, “By justifying his use of section 81 to comply with an international obligation, the Governor has usurped the Constitutional right of the LA to remedy incompatibility. This is both an error of law and in excess of his power.”

However, neither Anglin, nor the judge deal with the additional constitutional issue that the governor acted under the direction of the UK secretary of state, and according to the Constitution the local court has no power to intervene in any decision made in London.

Colours Caribbean, whose legal counsel has written to the governor expressing concern about a number of issues surrounding this case, also stated that this is a fundamental issue in the case. Colours stated that from a legal perspective, it is not possible for the local governor to breach the Constitution if they are directed by the UK.

“Justice Williams failed to identify that the Governor had absolutely no discretion but to act upon the instructions” of the UK, the activists noted in their long release based on legal advice.

While the Day and Bodden-Bush case in London is set for 23 February, Anglin’s case, which was listed at the end of last year for another chamber’s hearing, was adjourned administratively. At this stage CNS is unaware of the next date in the case but will pay close attention to the court listings.

See Colours press release and find link to the JR application in the CNS Library

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Tags: , , , , , ,

Category: Laws, Politics

Comments (78)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Anonymous says:

    Here is what gay marriages proponets is looking to achieve. Systematic demolishment of the family unit and faith.


    • Anonymous says:

      This nonsense was expected. You seem to be the first one. But hey, good point. And great idea.

    • Anonymous says:

      Banning life-limiting creationism in all schools would be a victory for truth-based learning, freeing up valuable time, and pairing well with all the other subject material: history, geography, science, math, languages, grammar, technology, music etc.

  2. SSM345 says:

    Two men, a father and a mother are all humans last time i checked…….the entire debacle revolves around Human Rights which is a concept you cannot wrap your thick head around because you are lost with your warped, caveman, out of date belief system….

    Sweet baby Jesus; please legalizecommonsense for your minions.

    • Anonymous says:

      Next up you will be filing JR applications for legalizing the devils lettuce when that happens too right?

      • Anonymous says:

        He’s a big fan of the devil’s lettuce.

        • Anonymous says:

          A lot of you crazy people could use some of that lettuce to maybe rethink how stupid you are to follow a false God based on an unfortunately real religion…

  3. Diogenes says:

    So by her own submission, the Governor could have done ot through an Order in Council and it would have been fine? WTF is the point of the judicial review then? Even if the Privy Council were to agree with her – which seems highly problematic given that ensuring the UK and Cayman complied with international treaties would seem to fall into a definition of external affairs, quite apart from the specific protection provided to acting on directions from the secretary of state – she is admitting that the end result will be the same if it is passed as an Order in Council? Only difference will be all the tax payers money spent on dealing with it, and the added fuel to the fire in the community between the LGBT community and the hardline Christian activists. Irrational and I suspect fueled by anger rather than logic.

  4. WBW Premier. says:

    Big up Ms. Anglin!

    • Anonymous says:

      Notice how you are in the minority… maybe look at yourself and realize you’re on the wrong side of history. That sucks for you.

      • Anonymous says:

        Yep, they all come around eventually.
        Some just take longer than others.
        Some take generations, but it happens.
        Look at the many changes in society the past 200 years.

  5. Anonymous says:

    This JR application just seeks to muzzle the governor for the next few months. We all know the Queen’s Legal Representative, our Governor, can flex their rarely used, but legitimate slam dunk Legislative Assembly Reserve Powers under section 81 of the Constitution. We don’t need a JR to prove that.

    It seems like there is some tactical timing to this challenge as it seeks to obstruct the Governor from interfering in other current affairs, such as qualified removal of McKeeva Bush, and holding a Port Referendum, and limit interference in what are becoming more and more brazenly corrupt sub-surface governance issues, and dirty vote-buying going into the election.

  6. John Harris says:

    Hopefully the Privy Council will reinstate the CJ’s original ruling on gay marriage, because much though I hate to say it, Kattina Anglin’s judicial review application looks very strong. It’s disingenuous of her to say this isn’t about civil partnerships or gay marriage – she is asking the court to quash the civil partnerships law. But arguing that this is within the governor’s area of reserved powers is like the CJ saying that a multi-national law firm is a school… er, hang on.
    I’m also afraid there’s nothing in the argument about the court not having standing because of the bar on questioning instructions from Her Majesty. The court cannot go behind the Governor’s instructions, true, but that does not stop the court examining whether he has power to make the law at all. To say that the court cannot enquire into those instructions is one thing, to say it can’t assess whether that act is lawful is quite another.

    Yet again though, I am left to wonder about quite what is going on in the heads of Kattina Anglin, Nicholas Sykes et al, that they are so determined to deny the right to family life to others. Weird.

    • Anonymous says:

      Can a local court quash a civil partnership law considering how it came into force?

    • Anonymous says:

      John, I made the same point you did in a comment on another article that the legality of the act is different from the instructions to carry it out and whether those instructions were complied with. Someone replied to say there is Privy Council authority on the meaning and effect of that section and it is in all OT constitutions, and that because the Governor has no discretion when given instructions but to follow them, questioning his act is also questioning the instructions, therefore the act itself is beyond reach. I didn’t research it further because no one has paid me to do so, but assuming these PC decisions exist and they say what this comment says they do, there might be something in this argument. Otherwise the issue still looks to me the way it does to you.

      • John Harris says:

        But that would mean that any act is lawful and cannot be challenged in court, so long as carried out on the instructions of HM (acting through her ministers). That simply cannot be right. What if the U.K. govt told the governor to pass a law saying all Jamaicans should be imprisoned?

        • Anonymous says:

          Oh I agree completely. That’s why I want to see those PC decisions. The answer to your question of the person who replied to me before was that if following the UK’s instructions led to a breach of the Constitution, the UK courts would be competent to hear that case but not the local courts. Since the Constitution is an Order in Council, that makes sense to me as a matter of fundamentals, but the Constitution might provide that the local courts have sufficient competence.

    • Anonymous says:

      Like so many, not sure you have any grasp on the pretext of this JR. It’s about muzzling the Governor. No more no less.

    • Bishop Nicholas Sykes says:

      Dear John Harris,

      As to what I do think, of course you may indeed have your questions addressed. Just contact me as directed in my site http://www.truthwithlanguage.com

      • John Harris says:

        I had a look at your website, Nick, but I can’t say I found anything to engage with – just a load of mumbo jumbo. You are free to read your bible but don’t expect me to be impressed by quotes from it.

        I hate to break it to you, but marriage is a civil institution, not a religious one. As such, it’s available to everyone.

        Your religious beliefs are precisely that – yours. You have no right to impose them on anyone else. The fact that you attempt to do so speaks volumes.

  7. Anonymous says:

    At the end of the day, we face the same God.
    I do not believe Kattina hates anyone. She is defending the traditional values and the truth that marriage is ordained by God between 1 male and 1 female.
    What will you tell God?

    • Anonymous says:

      I believe in 1 less ‘god’ out of thousands than you. Which one?

      • Anonymous says:

        The God that gave you the breath of life and the free will to reject Him. There is only one and your heart knows the truth, it is just that your mind is wilfully blind.

    • JTB says:

      Nothing, because he’s your imaginary friend, not mine.

      • Anonymous says:

        You are unqualified to judge my relationship with my Creator and Saviour.
        So who has been answering my prayers all this time?
        Who was crucified and rose again?
        I am not surprised God is not your friend when you denigrate Him as being imaginary.

        “The fool has said in his heart, There is no God”.

        You are still alive; perhaps you should use some of your time to be a bit more curious as to why you are here?

        • Anonymous says:

          This is not my first reincarnation, but next time around I would really love to see this world a more tolerant, peaceful and harmonious one.God knows how long people have been around but it seems we haven’t learned much. Arguing about one of the most beautiful things out there : equality,instead of dedicating time,resources and energy to a million and one problems out there. Truly a sad state of affairs.

        • JTB says:

          Perhaps you should use your time to mind your own sodding business and stop imposing your spiteful delusions on others.

          I am not judging you or your religion, I am responding to your attempt to involve me in it.

        • Anonymous says:

          “lean not unto thy own understanding”

          Wrote a man who believed that the Earth was flat in the centre of the universe and that the Sun orbited us instead.

      • Anonymous says:

        Ezzard is your imaginary friend.

    • Anonymous says:

      Sorry to break it to you, God doesn’t make the law.

  8. Faithfully Yours says:

    Kattina and her supporters are blessed. Everything is being recorded in heaven. Whether this case is successful or not – it does not matter. This is free speech, a godly statement. And the children of light and the children of darkness are clearly manifesting themselves. Choosing their sides. That’s the whole aim before the judgement after death, and the great judgement to come. 🙂

    • JTB says:

      I’ll have one of what you’re drinking

      • Anonymous says:

        Don’t bother. It’s non alcoholic kook aid called hateraid.

        • Born CayCay ;) says:

          But hate against what? Think. Is he or she hating or disliking gay people; or, the promotion of homosexual BEHAVIOR being pushed on society to accept. … please think before you give us your drivel. It really makes you look dumb.

          • Anonymous says:

            My God, how would you define homosexual behavior and how can it be pushed on society to accept it? It’s the same thing as to say pushing on society to accept left handed people. I mean… at this point in time can’t people learn a thing or two about the subject they oppose to and protest so much? In this case, a complex and diverse subject of human sexuality. It is not that hard.

          • Anonymous says:

            You can think what you like, just know we are not fooled by your hate. You aren’t christian, and you most likely have a few skeletons in your closet.

    • Anonymous says:


    • Anonymous says:

      Great post. Well done. Haters gonna hate and then they project their hatred onto you.
      Truly the work of darkness.

      • Anonymous says:

        It really is sad to see that the real definition of Christians are actually living atheist lives.

  9. Anonymous says:

    Bravo 10:18. Simple and precise!!!

  10. Anonymous says:

    Why are all these so-called Christians silent in the face of the “Honourable” Speaker’s conviction for a drunken assault on a female? Surely the Baby Jesus disapproves of that too?

  11. Devon says:

    This money wasted could be spent on rehabilitation programmes at the prison.

  12. ThIs WrItInG Is VeRy IrRiTaTiNg says:

    Kattina and whoever is backing her should put this much time and effort into removing McKeeva as speaker of the house and educating the voters about his abhorrent behaviour. Someone who violently attacks women should not hold public office. This is far more important than fighting against equal rights for all.

    • Anonymous says:

      We unfortunately have to pay her legal aid and can’t recover costs when she surely looses.

    • Da-wa-u-get says:

      you may not be aware but it is reported that Katina is a frequent visitor at the Speakers house.
      coul it be an orchestrated little smoke screen to divert or dilute the attention of the Voters? Note the familiar hallmarks of Biblical references with threats of fire and brimstone for those who are tempted to stray from the prescribed Dogma!

      • Anonymous says:

        I was just going to post that I thought she was a supporter of Mac and then there was your post. Makes one pause doesn’t it???

    • Anonymous says:

      LOL Kattina has publicly defended his actions on social media! You’d see snow first. I wonder if she agrees with the part in Leviticus where if a man rapes a woman he can simply pay the woman’s father to marry and move on happily ever after? Surely, the bible is the way here.

    • Albert Conolly says:

      Why dont you do it..If you have a problem with Mac,why would you want Katrina to do something about that..

  13. Anonymous says:

    knowing that people like miss Anglin are going to burn away their life savings fighting an already lost battle truly bring me great joy.

    • Anonymous says:

      How spiteful you are…

    • Anonymous says:

      Schadenfreude for sure on this slamdunk, except that we’re the one’s picking up the tab – she got legal aid (see third link in related links above)! Anglin is a broke Unity Regime pawn. It’s they that have an interest in holstering the Governor’s reserve powers and influence into these final pre-election weeks. This is what corruption looks like.

  14. Anonymous says:

    A pig in makeup is still a pig

    An attack against your own people disguised as investigating overreach by a governor who acted *under instruction* from our mommeh is still an attack on YOUR own people, Kat.

  15. Anonymous says:

    Time’s up on Kattina Anglin, Nicholas Sykes, and all the other laser-focused state-assisted hate groups, organizers, and membership masquerading as “do unto others”, Golden Rule Christians.

    Bermuda’s Same Sex Marriage challenge is being heard over two days at the Privy Council starting tomorrow.

    “Being gay is not the issue. The issue is for all people to be equal under the law. Human rights and equity should be for all.”

    • Anonymous says:

      We were all equal until you radical twerps came along.

    • Anonymous says:

      Look around in your church. The average age is like 70 years old, and anyone younger 99% sure was indoctrinated into the church and didn’t voluntarily choose the lifestyle of giving up part of their salary on Sundays. Time to separate church from parliament.

      • Anonymous says:

        So essentially your admitting that the latest generations are very much confused and agnostic and pretty much an open book for any kind of manipulation.

        • Anonymous says:

          No, I’m saying younger, more open minded adults don’t need to have the promise of reward or threat of eternal damnation in the back of their minds in order to do good. Rather, they use common sense.

    • Anonymous says:

      We disagree.

    • Caymanian Love♡ says:

      And I guess the number of your thumbs rating prove your point is true?? 😏 How is two men that can’t have children equal to a father & a mother? … EQUALITY IS NOT EQUIVALENCE ☝🏽

      • Anonymous says:

        Tell this to a heterosexual couple who are fertile. Or the one who got married when they were over 60. For real now. Gay couples adopt the poor souls who were abandoned by procreating heterosexuals,and give them life they didn’t dear to hope for. But hey. I guess with your logic it doesn’t count for anything.

      • Anonymous says:

        And nonequivalence doesn’t justify inequality. Your thesis is that if someone is not equivalent in some way that justifies them not having the same rights in society. You may as well say woman are not as strong as men so should not be entitled to do the same jobs. Why not try nd join the rest of us in the 21st Century

    • Anonymous says:

      This is not about ‘hate’, it’s not ‘hateful’ to have a different view as to what the institution of marriage means and it’s not ‘hateful’ to seek recourse to the courts. Courts are there specifically so that issues can be resolved in a peaceful manner. Tolerance operates both ways.

      • Anonymous says:

        This JR review is about whether the Governor can use section 81 powers at HRH’s request, in her own Dependent Overseas Territory. There is already no legal doubt from any side about the necessity of the Civil Partnerships Law, or what will surely be the unanimous outcome in this distraction case to formally test and engrain these powers.

        Days from a Marriage Equality verdict for Bermuda, you should expect there’s more legislation coming down in the months ahead to correct our legal issues. Whether these legal remedies come via Governor’s section 81 powers in the Parliament, or by way of UK order-in-council, the mechanism doesn’t change the outcome.

        Much as you might wish for repugnant oppression and unconstitutional bias to still be on trial, they are not. To continue to conspire to unlawfully impede people’s rights, isn’t just spiteful, it may have, and probably should have, serious legal consequences for all of those still involved/obsessed in that preoccupation.

        • Anonymous says:

          My point is that hating on each side has to stop and instead respecting / understanding each other’s viewpoint should be the norm, it’s the only way to peacefully co-exist. Throwing out terms such as ‘repugnant oppression’ doesn’t really help. And I still stand by the premise that recourse to courts is not offensive, it is the right way to behave in a peaceful democracy. Now allow the judges to determine if the Governor is correct.

          • Anonymous says:

            Denying our own people their civil rights was found through earlier JR to be repugnant to the Constitution. There were no sides that disagreed with that. There is no forward co-existence with the former failing illegal stance, and time’s up on promoting incompatibility with the law. The two choices for those still allied in the wrong camp are: (a) wisen-up, or (b) get fitted with a prison romper.

          • Anonymous says:

            You seem to be the only one in this thread who actually has a heart of love and enough social understanding to state the uncontestable truth that the court is the proper place to settle disputes. Thank you.

    • Anonymous says:

      You forgot Anthony Eden and Alva Suckoo

    • Anonymous says:

      Be a real Christian and speak out against a convicted woman beating drunken disgrace who refuses to stand down from high office.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

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