DOCSLIB.ORG

Judgment (PDF)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Judgment (PDF) [2009] UKPC 43 Privy Council No 0016 of 2009 HEARING ON THE REPORT OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF GIBRALTAR REFERRAL UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE ACT 1833 before Lord Phillips Lord Hope Lord Rodger Lady Hale Lord Brown Lord Judge Lord Clarke ADVICE DELIVERED ON 12 November 2009 Heard on 15,16, 17, and 18 June 2009 Chief Justice of Gibraltar Governor of Gibraltar Michael Beloff QC Timothy Otty QC Paul Stanley (Instructed by Clifford (Instructed by Charles Chance LLP) Gomez & Co and Carter Ruck) Government of Gibraltar James Eadie QC (Instructed by R J M Garcia) LORD PHILLIPS : 1. The task of the Committee is to advise Her Majesty whether The Hon. Mr Justice Schofield, Chief Justice of Gibraltar, should be removed from office by reason of inability to discharge the functions of his office or for misbehaviour. The independence of the judiciary requires that a judge should never be removed without good cause and that the question of removal be determined by an appropriate independent and impartial tribunal. This principle applies with particular force where the judge in question is a Chief Justice. In this case the latter requirement has been abundantly satisfied both by the composition of the Tribunal that conducted the initial enquiry into the relevant facts and by the composition of this Committee. This is the advice of the majority of the Committee, namely, Lord Phillips, Lord Brown, Lord Judge and Lord Clarke. Security of tenure of judicial office under the Constitution 2. Gibraltar has two senior judges, the Chief Justice and a second Puisne Judge. The Gibraltar Constitution Order 2006 (“the 2006 Order”) provides: “Tenure of office of judges 64 (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person holding the office of Chief Justice or of Puisne Judge shall vacate that office when he attains the age of 67… (2) The Chief Justice … may be removed from office only for inability to discharge the functions of his office (whether arising from infirmity of body or mind or any other cause) or for misbehaviour… (3) The Chief Justice… shall be removed from office by the Governor if the question of the removal of that judge from office has, at the request of the Governor made in pursuance of subsection (4),been referred by Her Majesty to the Judicial Committee Page 1 of Her Majesty's Privy Council under section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act 1833 or any other enactment enabling Her Majesty in that behalf, and the Judicial Committee has advised Her Majesty that the judge ought to be removed from office for inability as aforesaid or misbehaviour. (4) If the Governor considers that the question of removing the Chief Justice…from office for inability as aforesaid or for misbehaviour ought to be investigated, then – (a) the Governor shall appoint a tribunal…; (b) the tribunal shall inquire into the matter and report on the facts thereof to the Governor and advise the Governor whether he should request that the question of the removal of that judge should be referred by Her Majesty to the Judicial Committee [of Her Majesty’s Privy Council]; and (c) if the tribunal so advises, the Governor shall request that the question should be referred accordingly. (6) If the question of removing the Chief Justice…has been referred to a tribunal under subsection (4), the Governor may suspend him from performing the functions of his office… . (8) The powers of the Governor under this section shall be exercised by him in accordance with the advice of the Judicial Service Commission.” 3. These provisions, other than those in subsection (8), reproduced provisions to the same effect in section 60 of the Gibraltar Constitution Order 1969 (“the 1969 Order”). Page 2 Procedural background 4. On 17 April 2007 all the Queen’s Counsel in Gibraltar, with the exception of the Speaker in the House of Assembly, were among the signatories (“the Signatories”) to a Memorandum to the Governor that expressed on behalf of themselves and their respective firms “their deep concern at a state of affairs which has developed seriously affecting the administration of justice and the reputational image of Gibraltar”. They stated that they had lost confidence in the ability of the Chief Justice to discharge the functions of his office. At the request of the Governor they submitted a Supplementary Memorandum (“the Second Memorandum”) dated 21 May which set out in detail the reasons for their dissatisfaction with the Chief Justice. One firm, Hassans & Co, wrote dissociating themselves from those parts of the Second Memorandum that related to matters in respect of which they had professionally represented the Chief Justice or his wife. 5. Copies of the two Memoranda were supplied to the Chief Justice and his solicitors sent a preliminary response to the Governor. All of these documents were considered by the Judicial Service Commission, which advised the Governor to appoint a Tribunal under section 64(4) of the 2006 Order. The Governor did so on 14 September 2007 and on 17 September he suspended the Chief Justice, pursuant to section 64(6) of the Order. 6. One member of the Tribunal recused himself and was replaced, whereupon the Tribunal consisted of the Rt Hon Lord Cullen of Whitekirk, the Rt Hon Sir Peter Gibson and the Rt Hon Sir Jonathan Parker. 7. There were two directions hearings. These were attended by representatives of the Chief Justice and of the Government of Gibraltar, the Governor of Gibraltar and the signatories to the Memoranda (“the Signatories”) as interested parties. At the second hearing all agreed “that in making its report to the Governor the Tribunal should express its own view on whether the facts found by the Tribunal showed any inability on the part of the Chief Justice to discharge the functions of his office or any misbehaviour on his part and, if so, to reach its own conclusion as to whether such inability or misbehaviour should warrant his removal from office.” The parties agreed a Statement of Issues that set out 23 episodes between 1999 and 2007 where the conduct of the Chief Justice had been the subject of criticism. 8. The Tribunal sat from 7 to 28 July to hear evidence of fact. 18 witnesses gave oral evidence. The Tribunal also had regard to written statements by a further 11 witnesses who Page 3 did not give oral evidence. These included Mrs Schofield, the wife of the Chief Justice, who had been expected to give evidence. She declined to give evidence on the ground that she did not consider satisfactory the terms on which funding had been provided to her to enable her to obtain legal advice in relation to certain matters relating to her appearance before the Tribunal. The Tribunal indicated that it did not consider that this justified her failure to appear to give evidence. They were right to do so. Had Mrs Schofield wished to give evidence there was no reason why she should not have done so. The Report of the Tribunal 9. The Report of the Tribunal to the Governor is dated 12 November 2008. It was provided to the Chief Justice on 3 December and published on the following day. The Report makes findings of primary fact in relation to each of the 23 episodes identified in the Statement of Issues. In relation to all but one of these it criticises the conduct of the Chief Justice. Some of these criticisms are based on inferences drawn from the primary facts as to the knowledge, perception or motive of the Chief Justice. In making findings of fact the Tribunal has applied the civil standard of proof of balance of probability. The Tribunal commented that in a number of instances the conduct of the Chief Justice amounted to impropriety, giving four examples of this, but added that no single instance of misbehaviour showed that the Chief Justice was unfit to hold office. 10. The conclusions of the Tribunal were set out in the following final paragraphs of its Report: “7.36 The conduct of the Chief Justice which we have summarised earlier in this chapter directly affected the way in which he discharged part of the responsibilities of his office, such as his relations with the Governor and the Government (covering such matters as funding, proposed legislation and appointments), and his relations with the representatives of the Bar. The conduct stemmed, in our view, from a number of characteristics of his personality and attitude, as follows. 7.37 First, the Chief Justice did not seem to be alive to the boundary between what was and what was not proper for someone in his position to do or say. He repeatedly showed a lack of judgment in this respect. He also showed the lack of a sense of proportion, and tended to over-react to perceived slights. He did not observe appropriate restraint or respect for accuracy in his public pronouncements. 7.38 Secondly, he showed a pre-occupation, bordering on an obsession, with judicial independence. He claimed that it was under threat when this was not the case. This led to his responding in an improper or excessive manner to executive Page 4 action of which he disapproved. Allied to this was his pre- occupation with the status of his office and his continuance in office. This showed itself in a number of ways ranging from petty discourtesy to the Chief Minister to the unfounded accusation that the Government had long sought to have him removed from office. 7.39 Fourthly, he showed himself to be unable to restrain himself from supporting his wife in her attack of the members of the Bar Council or her libel action against its Chairman.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Hearing on the Report of the Chief Justice of Gibraltar
    [2009] UKPC 43 Privy Council No 0016 of 2009 HEARING ON THE REPORT OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF GIBRALTAR REFERRAL UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE ACT 1833 before Lord Phillips Lord Hope Lord Rodger Lady Hale Lord Brown Lord Judge Lord Clarke ADVICE DELIVERED ON 12 November 2009 Heard on 15,16, 17, and 18 June 2009 Chief Justice of Gibraltar Governor of Gibraltar Michael Beloff QC Timothy Otty QC Paul Stanley (Instructed by Clifford (Instructed by Charles Chance LLP) Gomez & Co and Carter Ruck) Government of Gibraltar James Eadie QC (Instructed by R J M Garcia) LORD PHILLIPS : 1. The task of the Committee is to advise Her Majesty whether The Hon. Mr Justice Schofield, Chief Justice of Gibraltar, should be removed from office by reason of inability to discharge the functions of his office or for misbehaviour. The independence of the judiciary requires that a judge should never be removed without good cause and that the question of removal be determined by an appropriate independent and impartial tribunal. This principle applies with particular force where the judge in question is a Chief Justice. In this case the latter requirement has been abundantly satisfied both by the composition of the Tribunal that conducted the initial enquiry into the relevant facts and by the composition of this Committee. This is the advice of the majority of the Committee, namely, Lord Phillips, Lord Brown, Lord Judge and Lord Clarke. Security of tenure of judicial office under the Constitution 2. Gibraltar has two senior judges, the Chief Justice and a second Puisne Judge.
    [Show full text]
  • Part 05.Indd
    PART MISCELLANEOUS 5 TOPICS Awards and Honours Y NATIONAL AWARDS NATIONAL COMMUNAL Mohd. Hanif Khan Shastri and the HARMONY AWARDS 2009 Center for Human Rights and Social (announced in January 2010) Welfare, Rajasthan MOORTI DEVI AWARD Union law Minister Verrappa Moily KOYA NATIONAL JOURNALISM A G Noorani and NDTV Group AWARD 2009 Editor Barkha Dutt. LAL BAHADUR SHASTRI Sunil Mittal AWARD 2009 KALINGA PRIZE (UNESCO’S) Renowned scientist Yash Pal jointly with Prof Trinh Xuan Thuan of Vietnam RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL GAIL (India) for the large scale QUALITY AWARD manufacturing industries category OLOF PLAME PRIZE 2009 Carsten Jensen NAYUDAMMA AWARD 2009 V. K. Saraswat MALCOLM ADISESHIAH Dr C.P. Chandrasekhar of Centre AWARD 2009 for Economic Studies and Planning, School of Social Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. INDU SHARMA KATHA SAMMAN Mr Mohan Rana and Mr Bhagwan AWARD 2009 Dass Morwal PHALKE RATAN AWARD 2009 Actor Manoj Kumar SHANTI SWARUP BHATNAGAR Charusita Chakravarti – IIT Delhi, AWARDS 2008-2009 Santosh G. Honavar – L.V. Prasad Eye Institute; S.K. Satheesh –Indian Institute of Science; Amitabh Joshi and Bhaskar Shah – Biological Science; Giridhar Madras and Jayant Ramaswamy Harsita – Eengineering Science; R. Gopakumar and A. Dhar- Physical Science; Narayanswamy Jayraman – Chemical Science, and Verapally Suresh – Mathematical Science. NATIONAL MINORITY RIGHTS MM Tirmizi, advocate – Gujarat AWARD 2009 High Court 55th Filmfare Awards Best Actor (Male) Amitabh Bachchan–Paa; (Female) Vidya Balan–Paa Best Film 3 Idiots; Best Director Rajkumar Hirani–3 Idiots; Best Story Abhijat Joshi, Rajkumar Hirani–3 Idiots Best Actor in a Supporting Role (Male) Boman Irani–3 Idiots; (Female) Kalki Koechlin–Dev D Best Screenplay Rajkumar Hirani, Vidhu Vinod Chopra, Abhijat Joshi–3 Idiots; Best Choreography Bosco-Caesar–Chor Bazaari Love Aaj Kal Best Dialogue Rajkumar Hirani, Vidhu Vinod Chopra–3 idiots Best Cinematography Rajeev Rai–Dev D Life- time Achievement Award Shashi Kapoor–Khayyam R D Burman Music Award Amit Tivedi.
    [Show full text]
  • The Appointment, Tenure and Removal of Judges Under Commonwealth
    The The Appointment, Tenure and Removal of Judges under Commonwealth Principles Appoin An independent, impartial and competent judiciary is essential to the rule tmen of law. This study considers the legal frameworks used to achieve this and examines trends in the 53 member states of the Commonwealth. It asks: t, Te ! who should appoint judges and by what process? nur The Appointment, Tenure ! what should be the duration of judicial tenure and how should judges’ remuneration be determined? e and and Removal of Judges ! what grounds justify the removal of a judge and who should carry out the necessary investigation and inquiries? Re mo under Commonwealth The study notes the increasing use of independent judicial appointment va commissions; the preference for permanent rather than fixed-term judicial l of Principles appointments; the fuller articulation of procedural safeguards necessary Judge to inquiries into judicial misconduct; and many other developments with implications for strengthening the rule of law. s A Compendium and Analysis under These findings form the basis for recommendations on best practice in giving effect to the Commonwealth Latimer House Principles (2003), the leading of Best Practice Commonwealth statement on the responsibilities and interactions of the three Co mmon main branches of government. we This research was commissioned by the Commonwealth Secretariat, and undertaken and alth produced independently by the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law. The Centre is part of the British Institute of International and
    [Show full text]
  • Commentary on the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct
    COMMENTARY ON THE BANGALORE PRINCIPLES OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT THE JUDICIAL INTEGRITY GROUP March 2007 2 CONTENTS PREFACE … 5 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS … 7 DRAFTING HISTORY … 9 PREAMBLE … 19 Value 1: INDEPENDENCE … 35 Value 2: IMPARTIALITY … 53 Value 3: INTEGRITY … 73 Value 4: PROPRIETY … 79 Value 5: EQUALITY … 111 Value 6: COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE … 119 IMPLEMENTATION … 131 DEFINITIONS … 133 Appendix: CULTURAL AND RELIGIOUS TRADITIONS … 135 SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY … 147 INDEX … 151 3 4 PREFACE A judiciary of undisputed integrity is the bedrock institution essential for ensuring compliance with democracy and the rule of law. Even when all other protections fail, it provides a bulwark to the public against any encroachments on its rights and freedoms under the law. These observations apply both domestically within the context of each nation State and globally, viewing the global judiciary as one great bastion of the rule of law throughout the world. Ensuring the integrity of the global judiciary is thus a task to which much energy, skill and experience must be devoted. This is precisely what the Judicial Group on Strengthening Judicial Integrity (The Judicial Integrity Group) has sought to do since it set out on this task in 2000. It commenced as an informal group of Chief Justices and Superior Court Judges from around the world who combined their experience and skill with a sense of dedication to this noble task. Since then, its work and achievements have grown to a point where they have made a significant impact on the global judicial scene. The principles tentatively worked out originally have received increasing acceptance over the past few years from the different sectors of the global judiciary and from international agencies interested in the integrity of the judicial process.
    [Show full text]
  • Download the Guide
    A Guide to Brexit Terminology This glossary has been designed to explain some of the key terms used in relation to Brexit. At the end of the glossary are links to additional resources and originals of key documents. The Glossary is not designed to be an exhaustive list and the authors hope that you find the explanations of key terms helpful. The UK which voted to join the EU had a different constitution to the UK that voted to leave the EU. This is reflected by some of the terminology used in the glossary and the inclusion of reference to the legislatures in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N |O| P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | A to Z of Brexit terms February 01 2019 version pg. 1 Advisory The Brexit referendum is often described as ‘only advisory’. The referendum was authorised and conducted under the European Union Referendum Act 2015. It is advisory because Parliament is sovereign and because the Act contained no enabling legislation. Enabling provisions are ones which explicitly state that Parliament is legally bound to implement the outcome of the referendum. Hence, Parliament was not legally obliged to enact the outcome of the Brexit referendum. In contrast, for countries with codified constitutions, the outcome of a referendum ‘may’, in some instances bind both parliament and the government to implement its result. In Britain, however, with an uncodified constitution, it is possible for the government to promise in advance that it would respect the result, but that promise would be only political and not legally binding as parliament cannot be bound be a previous parliament; it can change its mind.
    [Show full text]
  • Gibraltar's Constitutional Future
    RESEARCH PAPER 02/37 Gibraltar’s Constitutional 22 MAY 2002 Future “Our aims remain to agree proposals covering all outstanding issues, including those of co-operation and sovereignty. The guiding principle of those proposals is to build a secure, stable and prosperous future for Gibraltar and a modern sustainable status consistent with British and Spanish membership of the European Union and NATO. The proposals will rest on four important pillars: safeguarding Gibraltar's way of life; measures of practical co-operation underpinned by economic assistance to secure normalisation of relations with Spain and the EU; extended self-government; and sovereignty”. Peter Hain, HC Deb, 31 January 2002, c.137WH. In July 2001 the British and Spanish Governments embarked on a new round of negotiations under the auspices of the Brussels Process to resolve the sovereignty dispute over Gibraltar. They aim to reach agreement on all unresolved issues by the summer of 2002. The results will be put to a referendum in Gibraltar. The Government of Gibraltar has objected to the process and has rejected any arrangement involving shared sovereignty between Britain and Spain. Gibraltar is pressing for the right of self-determination with regard to its constitutional future. The Brussels Process covers a wide range of topics for discussion. This paper looks primarily at the sovereignty debate. It also considers how the Gibraltar issue has been dealt with at the United Nations. Vaughne Miller INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS AND DEFENCE SECTION HOUSE OF COMMONS LIBRARY Recent Library Research Papers include: List of 15 most recent RPs 02/22 Social Indicators 10.04.02 02/23 The Patents Act 1977 (Amendment) (No.
    [Show full text]
  • This Is a Pre-Copyedited, Author-Produced Version of an Article Accepted for Publication in the Journal of International and Comparative Law Following Peer Review
    This is a pre-copyedited, author-produced version of an article accepted for publication in the Journal of International and Comparative Law following peer review. The definitive published version for Hatchard, John (2016). Some Thoughts on Judicial Integrity, Corruption and Accountability in Small Commonwealth African States, Journal of International and Comparative Law 3 (1), pp. 55-72 is available online on Westlaw UK or from Thomson Reuters DocDel service. 1 | P a g e JUDICIAL INTEGRITY, CORRUPTION AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN SMALL COMMONWEALTH AFRICAN STATES John Hatchard1 ‘We live in an era of greater public demand for accountability of the Judiciary. It is no longer considered a sacrosanct and inviolable haven of its occupants’. (Justice Anthony Gubbay)2 ‘We do not fear criticism, nor do we resent it’. (Lord Denning M.R.)3 Abstract: This article addresses some of the key challenges that judges in small states face in seeking to maintain judicial independence and uphold judicial integrity. It explores their appropriate reaction to public criticism of judgments, including the extent to which judges themselves and/or members of their family should use the media to respond to such criticism. The article then considers the appropriate response of judges to media allegations of judicial corruption and impropriety and argues, in particular, against the retention of the criminal offence of scandalising the court. A highly publicised dispute between two senior judges in Lesotho then highlights the importance of judges respecting the Values of ‘Integrity’ and ‘Propriety’ enshrined in the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct. Keywords: small states; Commonwealth Africa; judicial response to criticism; corruption allegations against judges by the media; offence of scandalising the court; upholding judicial integrity.
    [Show full text]
  • January 2017
    January 2017 ROCK TALK Issue 12 1 Contents Editorials 2 Varied Career in Law in Gibraltar 18 Chairman‟s Letter 3 News from GHT 20 Diary of Society Events 2019 4 Witham‟s Cemetery 22 Report of Events 5 Devon to Gibraltar and back 24 Annual Friends‟ visit to Gibraltar 5 Nelson‟s Table – Fact or Fiction? 27 News from the Rock (Gibraltar House) 8 Gibraltar Street Names 28 London Talks 9 Gifts from the Friends 30 Annual Seminar and AGM 10 GGPE 60th Anniversary 30 Christmas Party report 13 Out and About in Gibraltar 31 Friends‟ Donations and Projects 14 Minutes of AGM 33 Membership Secretary‟s Jottings 15 Membership Form 35 My Rock Book 16 Editorials A belated Happy New year to all members and developments, and is an interesting read. readers of this edition of Rock Talk. We wish you a prosperous 2019, and hope to 2019 promises to be an interesting year in so see you in Gibraltar at some point over the many respects but one in particular sticks out like year. a 'sore thumb'. As we pen this editorial, the British Brian & Liz Gonzalez Parliament is in turmoil and this coming Tuesday will determine the future of the United Kingdom Another busy year for the society has come and Gibraltar vis a vis our future relationship with and gone, with the full range of events and Europe. By the time you read this we will be in a support for heritage projects in Gibraltar. better (or worse) position as to this 'relationship'. This issue hopes to update the membership We hope that politicians of all political colours on the various activities, and includes unite to deliver what is best for the United Kingdom and Gibraltar.
    [Show full text]
  • Departamento De Malvinas, Antártida E Islas Del Atlántico Sur
    Instituto de Relaciones Internacionales (IRI) - Anuario 2011 Departamento de Malvinas, Antártida e Islas del Atlántico Sur Considerando que este pequeño aporte puede ser de gran ayuda para todos aquellos que tengan interés en este sector geográfico, que por otra parte integra el problema de soberanía que mantenemos con el Reino Unido, y por ende de nuestros intereses en la Antártida, retomamos – como lo habíamos hecho con anterioridad – con la transcripción textual de las noticias aparecidas en el periódico MercoPress - South Atlantic News Agency (http://mercopress.com/), abarcando todos los temas que - a criterio de la suscripta – puedan tener relación tanto con el tema antártico como con las Islas Malvinas María Elena Baquedano Departamento de Malvinas, Antártida e Islas del Atlántico Sur MERCOPRESS. Monday, January 4th 2010 - 07:56 UTC Argentina recalls events of 1833 and reiterates Malvinas claim On the 177th anniversary of the “illegitimate occupation” by the United Kingdom of the Malvinas Islands, Argentina “repudiates” events of 3 January 1833 and calls on the UK to comply with the mandate of the international community and find a peaceful solution to the conflict. Liberation monument dedicated to the British troops that recovered the Falklands in June 1982 Liberation monument dedicated to the British troops that recovered the Falklands in June 1982 1 Instituto de Relaciones Internacionales (IRI) - Anuario 2011 An official communiqué from the Foreign Affairs Ministry released Sunday in Buenos Aires states that Argentina considers “incomprehensible the British negative to address the heart of the matter and to find a peaceful and definitive solution to the sovereignty controversy”, according to the international community mandate.
    [Show full text]
  • Monday 16Th December 2019
    P R O C E E D I N G S O F T H E G I B R A L T A R P A R L I A M E N T AFTERNOON SESSION: 3.34 p.m. – 6.19 p.m. Gibraltar, Monday, 16th December 2019 Contents Prayer ............................................................................................................................................... 3 Confirmation of Minutes .................................................................................................................. 3 Communications from the Chair ...................................................................................................... 3 Recognition of Hon. K Azopardi as Her Majesty’s Leader of the Opposition .......................... 3 Papers to be laid ............................................................................................................................... 3 Announcements ............................................................................................................................... 4 UK General Election result and Brexit – Statement by the Chief Minister ............................... 4 Questions for Oral Answer ................................................................................................... 11 Housing, Youth and Sport ............................................................................................................... 11 Q149/2019 Victoria Stadium floodlights – Responsibility for maintenance .......................... 11 Q150/2019 Newly built sports facilities – Outstanding remedial works and completion ..... 12 Q151/2019
    [Show full text]
  • Press Release
    PRESS RELEASE No. 119/2015 Date: 26th February 2015 Opposition created the fishing issue that they are now complaining about The latest statement from the Opposition on the enforcement of the law against fishing with nets shows that they have no policy on anything except misleading and confusing public opinion. The GSLP/Liberals in Opposition were against the 1999 fishing agreement from the moment that it was entered into by the previous Chief Minister and a group of Spanish fishermen. The latest statement from the GSD exemplifies how embarrassed Daniel Feetham seems to be about those actions of Sir Peter Caruana - despite having called him "the greatest Gibraltarian of all time." The fact is that there is today illegal fishing by Spanish fishermen because the GSD, which Mr Feetham leads, allowed it to happen and created the problem in the first place. It will be recalled that the agreement purported to allow fishing with nets even though this was against the law. It established a regime whereby Spanish fishermen could fish with impunity inside British Gibraltar Territorial Waters provided that they did so at a certain distance, in certain locations, in certain numbers and with certain methods. Therefore the regime that the GSD created when they were in office was not only illegal at base, it was also discriminatory in its application. It therefore should surprise nobody that the 2011 manifesto of the parties in Government contained a reference to no longer be bound by the 1999 fishing agreement and that once in Government this commitment was acted upon. However, what is surprising is the newly found zeal on the part of the GSD Opposition to champion this issue when they did the exact opposite of what they are saying now from 1999 until 2011.
    [Show full text]
  • Feb/March/April 2014 Volume 20/ Number 1
    GIBRALTFebA/March/RApril 2014 I NTER NATIONAL F I N A N C E n I N V E S T M E N T n B U S I N E S S Race begins to dig into new office projects www.gibraltarinternational.com Sponsors Gibraltar International Magazine is grateful for the support of the finance industry and allied services (with the encouragement of the Finance Council) in the form of committed sponsorship. We would like to thank the following sponsors: GIBRALTAR FINANCE CENTRE Tel: + (350) 200 50011 • Fax: + (350) 200 51818 www.gibraltar.gov.gi DELOITTE ABACUS FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED Tel: + (350) 200 41200 • Fax + (350) 200 41201 Tel: + (350) 200 78777 www.deloitte.gi Fax: + (350) 200 76689 EUROPA TRUST COMPANY LIMITED www.abacus.gi Tel: + (350) 200 79013 • Fax + (350) 200 70101 QUEST INSURANCE MANAGEMENT LTD. www.europa.gi Tel: + (350) 200 74570 • Fax + (350) 200 40901 HASSANS www.quest.gi Tel: + (350) 200 79000 • Fax + (350) 200 71966 GIBTELECOM time after time www.gibraltarlaw.com Tel: + (350) 200 52200 • Fax: + (350) 200 71673 GRANT THORNTON www.gibtele.com 5SJBZBOE5SJBZXBTFTUBCMJTIFEJO Gibraltar’s Lawyers Since 1905 Tel: + (350) 200 45502 • Fax: + (350) 200 51071 KPMG BOETUJMMSFNBJOTBUUIFGPSFGSPOUPGUIFMFHBM t$PSQPSBUF$PNNFSDJBM www.grantthornton.gi Tel: + (350) 200 48600 • Fax: + (350) 200 49554 QSPGFTTJPOJO(JCSBMUBS XJUIBUSJFEBOEUSVTUFE t&NQMPZNFOU BAKER TILLY (GIBRALTAR) LTD www.kpmg.gi SFQVUBUJPOGPSFYDFMMFODFBNPOHTU t'BNJMZ Tel: + (350) 200 74015 • Fax: + (350) 200 74016 SAPPHIRE NETWORKS www.bakertillygibraltar.gi PVSDMJFOUTBOEQFFST t'JOBODJBM4FSWJDFT*OWFTUNFOU'VOET
    [Show full text]