WBN candidate disqualified over spent theft conviction
(CNS): Michael Lemay, who was hoping to contest the open seat of West Bay North as an independent candidate, has been disqualified due to a conviction more than two decades ago. Lemay, a well-known local musician, denied the allegation, but he has admitted that, on the advice of a lawyer, he pleaded guilty to the charge of theft, which related to a phone he was accused of stealing.
Although he was given just a $400 fine and the conviction is now spent, this one incident prevents Lemay from ever running for office.
The reasons for the disqualification of candidates are set out in the Cayman Islands Constitution, section 62. Candidates with criminal records are not necessarily disqualified, and there are several who have had run-ins with the law, including former premier McKeeva Bush
McKeeva Bush (WBW incumbent) is the longest-serving member of parliament (the “Father of the House”), having represented West Bay continuously for three decades. More and the UPM’s deputy premier, Kenneth Bryan.
However, anyone convicted of dishonesty offences, no matter how minor, or anyone who has been given a prison sentence of twelve months or more, suspended or otherwise, is barred for life.
Appearing on a Cayman Marl Road video interview on Sunday, Lemay explained that he was wrongly accused of stealing a phone from Funky Tangs more than twenty years ago. He said he was advised by the Elections Office that the conviction would disqualify him.
Elections officials advised him to step down to avoid a legal hearing in court as he would almost certainly be found not qualified to run since there is no room for the courts to rule otherwise.
The blanket ban for people who have dishonesty convictions even applies to juvenile convictions. In 2017, Mario Rankin was prevented from running for office because of a dishonesty conviction when he was underage. He was disqualified following a court hearing.
Lemay said he opted to withdraw rather than risk a loss in court. Although his disqualification is clear under the law, he blamed political pressure, though he has not offered any evidence to support the allegations.
There have been no other public indications at this point that any other candidates may not be qualified, nor are we aware of any proposed challenges by voters relating to the qualification of the candidates in their constituencies.
Check out the CNS Election Section interactive map to see who is running in each constituency.
See the list of candidates and their party affiliations here.
Related
Category: Election News
Change writes: Every constituency has the same issue when their MP becomes a minister. It is not that they stop caring about their area, but Cabinet members have no choice but to tackle issues at national level, and that takes budget, meetings, reports, travel, conference calls, sitting with lawyers to streamline bills and laws — all […]
It was found that John Seymour was not paying his minimum-wage employees’ contributions into the Pensions plan. If that is not stealing, someone tell me what it is; and yet he is running for office again.
Also misuse of CINICO funds by one candidate – was this not abusing public funds? CNS was this not fraudulent and dishonesty? Maybe he’s protected? But by whom?
CNS: The is is the last time I’ll allow a reference to this. What you are referring to is an article in the media. No one has been convicted of misusing CINICO funds.
According to the law, in this case the Constitution, a person cannot run if they have been convicted of a dishonesty offence in a court of law, where there is an actual judge and where they have the right to defend themselves. Public opinion following trial by media is not a legal disqualification.
Sorry bro. But you can’t help us anyway. At least you do not embarrass yourself any more this venture.
WHAT??? We have Mac, a convicted criminal X 2, Kenneth, ditto, John-John, who is teflon enough to skate by at least two “events”, and yet, this man who stood up and confessed is not allowed to run?? WTAF!!!
The law sets the bar at a conviction for dishonesty, of any form or length of sentence, or a conviction for an offence which has a maximum sentence of imprisonment of more than 12 months. Mr Lemay’s offence involved dishonesty, so the fact he was fined rather than imprisoned matters not. Macs offences don’t carry a +12 month maximum sentence – which may explain why the DPP charged him with common assault (max 12 months) rather than ABH. John John has never been convicted – he got acquitted on his assault charge, and as we all know was never breathalysed or blood tested for his motor accidents. Kenny is more interesting – the assaulting a police office conviction wouldnt carry more than 12 months, but he got 3 months inside for dealing drugs. Difficult to believe what he was charged with didnt carry a maximum potential sentence of more than 12 months. Maybe the conviction got expunged – it was a long time ago – but fairly sure it would have been less than the 25 year old conviction that Mr Lemay got eliminated for. .
https://caymanmarlroad.com/2018/10/31/the-undoing-of-cinicos-ceo-what-finally-broke-the-camels-back/
Once thief, always a thief.
But Kenneth did worse, and he is Deputy Premier.
If a low life drug dealer can be in office, why not Lemay whose alleged “crime” was little more than an unproven accusation of shoplifting.
Never a real candidate.