PLP in court: Plaintiffs seek to limit retrospective impact on members ‘rights’

A packed courtroom hosted day one of the trial over PLP membership rules.

Extra chairs had to be brought in to accommodate those keen to see how the case, brought against the PLP executive by leadership contender Curtis Dickinson and others, plays out.

Party Chair Dawn Simmons and General Secretary Patricia Basden are named as defendants on behalf of the party.

Among family, friends, supporters and observers were Deputy Premier Zane De Silva, PLP MP Wayne Furbert and PLP senator Lindsay Simmons.

Premier David Burt also came into court temporarily, in support of the defendants.

Curtis Dickinson was not present in the courtroom.

Following a near hour-long delay due to problems with the court recording software, Delroy Duncan began to lay out the case for the plaintiffs…

He acknowledged that the PLP has conceded to matters raised in their original summons – that amendments to the PLP membership process cannot be passed by the Central Committee under the current rules.

However, he added that they don’t want to see valid members stripped of rights they have under the PLP constitution – as it stands today – in a subsequent amendment elsewhere.

This is pertinent, since it has been all but stated outright that the PLP will seek to hold a Special Delegates Conference regardless of the court’s decision, in which they will again vote and potentially pass amendments which would stop all brand new members from becoming delegates and voting in the leadership election at the PLP’s Annual Delegates Conference.

That could potentially reduce Curtis Dickinson’s chances in the leadership election, since he has apparently brought in more than 1,800 new members. That surge in applications is what prompted the call for amendments in the first place.

One of Mr Duncan’s central arguments is whether the PLP’s constitution, at the time that a member joined the party, is effectively a contract.

If it is a contract, he says, it should be subject to contract laws, and verification of a membership should be what it was understood to be at the time of the membership application.

He also stressed that, as the PLP Constitution currently stands, having no affiliation with any opposing party is not a pre-condition of membership. There is a disciplinary process for acting against the interest of the party – but that is subsequent to becoming a member.

This is notable because the second proposed membership amendment sought to pre-vet membership applications from those who had campaigned or stood against the PLP in recent years.

Mr Duncan adds that the proviso they are seeking in conclusion to the case would not prevent the party making amendments to the future membership process. However, any attempt to retroactively impact a party member’s “accrued rights” must come back before the court.

The PLP made a statement earlier this week, implying that Curtis Dickinson was now seeking more than what was in the original summons.

However, Mr Duncan argued that Justice Shade Subair Williams had already determined in her September 10th ruling that the plaintiff’s concerns over retrospective changes to memberships were “a serious issue for trial”. Therefore, he argued, the matter is already live before the court.

Finally, Mr Duncan addressed the issue of requiring the PLP to cough up costs for the case so far.

He cited that a neutral legal opinion on the matter had been sent to the party on August 27th – a week before the summons was laid – which sought essentially the same resolution the plaintiffs now seek via the courts.

If that legal advice had been consented to, “we would not be here”, he said. Ultimately, as it was not heeded, Mr Duncan said there can be “no contest” that his client should receive costs for the case prior to today.

Costs for these two days of trial, he conceded, will depend on the Court’s final judgement in the case.

The case returns to court tomorrow at 10am, where Mark Pettingill will present the defense for the PLP.