The Tribune

By LAMECH JOHNSON

Tribune Staff Reporter

ljohnson@tribunemedia.net

COURT of Appeal judges will only make a decision on an injunction appeal in the Hawksbill Creek Agreement upon receiving an answer from the government on whether it intends to release a report detailing recommendations made over Freeport’s expiring tax incentives.

Dawson Malone, lawyer for Fred Smith, QC, and Carey Leonard, appeared before Justices Anita Allen, Jon Isaacs, and Stella Crane-Scott yesterday arguing for the court to grant an injunction to stop further consultation by the Hawksbill Creek Agreement Review Committee (HCARC) on the basis of a flawed process.

Mr Malone had argued that stakeholders interviewed by an international consultant group had not been made aware of the recommendations in a report presented to the government for consideration.

The appellate judges questioned whether making the report public was necessary as stakeholders like Mr Smith had been interviewed and understood the nature of the matters in question.

Loren Klein, Crown respondent, told the court that the government had never given a definitive “no” to the applicants that the report in question would not be made available.

The court asked Mr Klein if the government was prepared to make the report public before any decisions were made. Mr Klein said he would make recommendations to the government and relay their instructions to the court.

The appeal was adjourned to November 19 at 2.30pm.

Mr Smith and Mr Leonard had filed the judicial review challenge to the Hawksbill Creek consultation/reform process.

They had been seeking a temporary order preventing Prime Minister Perry Christie and his government from acting on the recommendations made over Freeport’s expiring tax incentives until the full judicial review case is heard.

They also wanted an order staying the “decision-making process regarding potential changes to the provisions of the Hawksbill Creek Agreement, and the economic and fiscal governance of Freeport”, which stem from the report produced by the government-appointed consultation committee led by Dr Marcus Bethel.

Justice Petra Hanna-Weekes, in dismissing their application for a stay and/or injunction, said she accepted the government’s contention that Messrs Smith and Leonard’s application was “premature” to be “persuasive”.

The government’s failure to publish the report on Freeport’s future by McKinsey, the international consulting firm, is central to the judicial review action launched by the Callenders & Co duo.

They are alleging that the consultation process, on which the report by Dr Bethel’s committee is based, was “fundamentally flawed and a sham” because key documents – especially the McKinsey report – were not released to those it interviewed.

The McKinsey report is seen as especially important because previous statements by Mr Christie suggest it influenced the Hawksbill Creek Agreement Review Committee’s terms of reference, while also playing a vital role in determining the government’s thinking on Freeport’s short and long-term future.

Messrs Smith and Leonard are ultimately seeking Supreme Court orders that prevent any decisions being made on the basis of the committee’s report; that require the McKinsey report to be made publicly available; and require that a new consultation process be undertaken with Freeport stakeholders.