Halstead v De La Bastide et Al

• Jurisdiction: Antigua and Barbuda
• Court: High Court (Antigua)
• Judge: Bishop J.
• Judgment Date: 18 October 1976
• Neutral Citation: AG 1976 HC 3
• Docket Number: No. 159 of 1976
• Date: 18 October 1976

High Court

Bishop, J.

No. 159 of 1976

Halstead

and

De La Bastide et al

Commission of Inquiry - Report — Whether question of publishing a report by the Commission arose — Whether doubt existed as to the right to relief being sought — Whether the right to relief was not clear.

Commission of Inquiry - Report — Whether question of publishing a report by the Commission arose — Whether doubt existed as to the right to relief being sought — Whether the right to relief was not clear.

Bishop J.

1 This is an application on the part of the plaintiff that the defendant be restrained from:

• (i) “issuing to or publishing to His Excellency the Governor or other body or person any report relevant to the said Commission referred to in the Statement of Claim filed in this matter;” and

• (ii) “making any recommendation relevant to the said Commission to His Excellency the Governor or other body or other person until the said writ is heard or further order.”

2 The application is supported by the affidavit of Donald A.S. Halstead, businessman of Branch Avenue. This affidavit comprises some 19 paragraphs, not all of which contain facts only, or facts by which I may properly be guided in determining the application. Paragraph 16, which was never referred to in any way by learned counsel for the plaintiff, when dealing with the application, seemed to me to be no more than a legal submission or conclusion. Paragraphs 17 and 18 showed that the deponent sought to use “radio reports broadcast on Radio Antigua” as sources of fact. Such reports ought not to be considered as sufficiently reliable or adequate for a Court. Certain of the Subsections of paragraph 19 set out contentions of law. Legal arguments, submissions, or conclusions are not necessary in an affidavit and tend merely to confuse rather than clarify the facts which are to be analysed.

3 In the Antigua Official Gazette (extraordinary) of Thursday 2 ^nd September 1976, exhibited with the affidavit in support, His Excellency the Governor, acting in accordance with the advice of the Cabinet, issued a Commission under the provision of the Commission of Inquiry Act Chapter 305, appointing the defendants ‘Commission under the above mentioned Act;’ and as such, they were “to inquire into and investigate the contents of an address made on the third day of March 1976 in a Radio - Television broadcast by the Honourable Reuben Henry Harris to the citizens of the State of Antigua and Barbuda, with particular reference to certain allegations therein made suggesting misconduct amounting to possible dishonesty possible dishonesty and malpractices in the conduct and administration of the finances and funds of the Public Service and of certain Statutory Authority of the said State; AND to that end investigate and examine Public Accounts of the said State and the conduct and accounts of any Statutory Authority thereof in such a manner and to such a degree and extent as the said Commissioners may deem fit.”

4 Now by virtue of the provisions of section 2 of Chapter 305 and all other powers vested in him, the Governor appointed the defendants for the purpose of Chapter 305 to make a full, faithful and impartial inquiry into the matters above all convenient speed to report fully their findings to his upon all facts relating to the matters above mentioned and any other matter connected therewith which may be brought to their notice and to submit such conclusions and observations” as they see fit, “making such recommendations and suggesting such remedies” as they the said Commissioners, “may deem useful, proper and/or expedient:”

5 His Excellency the Governor also directed not only when and where the inquiry must be held, but that it be held in public unless the Commissioners deemed it advisable for the due conduct of the inquiry, the preservation of order or any other reason to exclude any particular person or persons from any sitting or part of a sitting.

6 The affidavit in support of this application showed that the plaintiff know that the Commissioners sat and heard evidence on a number of days between September and 8th October 1976. (see paragraph 6).

7 In the Antigua Official Gazette, (extraordinary) dated Thursday 2nd September 1976, also herein called The Gazettes notice was given that “any interested person or others who wish to give evidence “touching the matters which were embraced by the terms of reference could communicate either orally or in writing with the Secretary of the Commission whose name and address were therein stated (paragraph 4 of the Gazette). I wish to underscore “or others” in that notice.

8 To me it is not without interest that in the writ filed on the 29th September, the plaintiff sought a declaration from the court that he “is a person whose conduct is the subject of the inquiry and/or ….. is in some way implicated, and/or … is a person concerned in the subject matter under inquiry.” So as that before this public inquiry ended on the 8 ^th October, the plaintiff had regarded himself as interested, as a person closely concerned in or with that inquiry.

9 Paragraph 5 of the affidavit is support of the...