By NICO SCAVELLA
Tribune Staff Reporter
nscavella@tribunemedia.net
A SUPREME Court judge yesterday reserved her decision on whether she will accede to media personality Christina "Chrissy Love" Thompson's application to have her constitutional motion against her contempt of court proceedings heard by another judge.
Justice Cheryl Grant-Thompson, during a hearing yesterday afternoon, said her ruling will be given on December 13, in response to the constitutional motion Ms Thompson filed in September against the originating summons for contempt of court and consequent proceedings.
The pending ruling stems from certain contemptuous remarks Ms Thompson allegedly made on social media about the legal proceedings against former Cabinet minister Shane Gibson.
Ms Thompson was previously summoned to appear before court on four separate occasions - twice in August and the same in September - to answer to charges of contempt of court in connection with her alleged statements, but never appeared.
As a result on September 20 Justice Grant-Thompson ordered Ms Thompson's immediate arrest, declaring a bench warrant be circulated to the Royal Bahamas Police Force (RBPF) as well as border officials for her arrest.
Prior to the issuance of the bench warrant, however, Ms Thompson filed a constitutional motion in response to the charges of contempt of court and the ensuing proceedings.
In that motion, dated September 13, 2017, Ms Thompson declared the constitutional rights given her under Articles 17, 19, 20, 23 and/or 28 of the Bahamas Constitution have been infringed upon.
She is also requesting an order that the proceedings originating from "verbal summons" returnable on August 31, as well as the summons bearing the date of August 31 be deemed a nullity, and that the proceedings commenced by the summons be stayed pending the determination of the constitutional motion.
She is also seeking vindicatory damages, general damages, costs and any other damages the court deems just.
According to the court documents, the grounds of the constitutional motion - nine in total - include but are not limited to: the proceedings are an abuse of the court process; the summons failed to comply with the stipulations of Section 59 of the Criminal Procedure Code; the summons presumes guilt on the part of the applicant; and the summons failed to give the applicant a reasonable period of notice in which to defend herself.
During a previous hearing, Ms Thompson's attorney Murrio Ducille submitted his client's position that Justice Grant-Thompson should refer the hearing over the constitutional motion to another judge.
At the time, Mr Ducille submitted while he is not seeking to bring into question the court's competence in hearing and consequently managing the particulars of the motion, the "appearance" of the matter's adjudication is crucial to the motion and thus should be heard by an "independent mind".
Mr Ducille maintained this position yesterday, suggesting should she adjudicate the matter, Justice Grant-Thompson would essentially be functioning as both "the complainant and the judge."
However, Justice Grant-Thompson ultimately adjourned the matter to the third week in December at 1pm to deliver her ruling.
Commenting has been disabled for this item.