Alex Potts, QC, has urged Justice Richard Williams not to rule that Governor Martyn Roper’s use of his reserved powers to enact the Civil Partnership Law was unconstitutional, because he believes such a ruling would undermine the legal protection now afforded to more than 80 families under the legislation.
Potts represents LGBTQ+ advocacy group Colours Caribbean, which was granted permission to join the judicial review as an interested party and allowed to give evidence on behalf of the LGBTQ+ community.
“There is overwhelming evidence that supports the tangible benefits of the Civil Partnership Act,” said Potts. “This evidence, which comes in the form of sworn affidavits, speaks to the concerns of the people who would find themselves with no legal protection, and an inevitable breach of their human rights if my Lord finds in favor of the claimant.”
The two-day civil proceeding has been brought by Kattina Anglin, who asserts that Governor Roper used his reserved powers to enact legislation, outside the terms set out in the constitution.
At the heart of the judicial review is the question of whether the reserved powers granted to him by Section 81 of the Cayman Islands’ Constitution gives him the right to enact legislation, and if so to what extent; or whether the Constitution limits such powers to the Cayman Islands Parliament.
While presenting his case, Potts agreed with the Governor’s legal team and called for Williams to rule against Anglin, whom he claimed would not be impacted if the law was to be upheld.
“The claimant has not given any evidence, in any form, which would suggest that she would be tangibly affected should the law be upheld,” said Potts. “Whereas we have demonstrated that, if the law is set aside, then there are real consequences for the families who have secured the benefits it provides.”
He added, “Let’s say that my Lord rules against us, and sets aside the Civil Partnership Act, what would happen to a person’s immigration status on island, or even if one partner was to die, before another law came into effect, what would happen to the surviving partner? Additionally what would happen to families who have adopted children?”
In response to Potts’ questions, which were also repeated by Justice Williams, Hugh Southey, QC, who represents Anglin, said, in such cases, each family would have to have separate court hearings to decide their fate.
“Each case would have to be reviewed by the court and a decision made based on the separate merits,” said Southey, who was also asked about his client’s religious stance against the law.
“While Ms. Anglin’s Christian views oppose the Civil Partnership Act, her primary concern remains with how the legislation was passed and whether it was done legally,” said Southey.
Justice Williams has reserved his ruling and a decision will be made public in the coming months.
Related Videos
